Both points you raise are really important in understanding how child abuse happens and how to prevent it. Which is why I'm extremely annoyed that we treat the terms "pedophile" and "child abuser" as the same.
But you can't normally bring that up or people think you're defending child abusers for some reason.
Yep though I do think this technical distinction you bring up is really only relevant in a clinical context.
Meanwhile the one between "pedophile" and "child abuser" is extremely important in real-life prevention of child abuse. The ideas that 1) only people with sexual attraction to kids would sexually abuse kids, and 2) if you feel sexual attraction to kids obviously you're gonna act on it, both seem logical but have both been comprehensively disproven.
A huge added barrier here is that people - for understandable reasons - don't want to really try to think through and reason logically about such a disgusting and emotionally laden subject, much less empathize with a pedophile. Unfortunately that exactly is required if we're not just looking to satisfy our vengeful sense of justice, but actually do something for the victims and prevent further child abuse.