Not up to your usual standard, Penguin. You claim there is a slippery slope here, and then you yourself mention how you can draw the line to stop the slipping. You paraphrase the woke principle as "people can identify however they please as long as doing so causes no harm to others.", and then admit that pedophiles aren't protected by this principle because they cause harm to others. So there is nothing inconsistent about the Woke refusing to defend Pedophiles. To defend an orientation is to permit it to be acted out, not just to tolerate thoughts and feelings. By your criterion, being Gay has always been tolerated, even by the most conservative people. So has murder, as no one has ever claimed that a person should be punished for thinking about murdering someone.

You are trying to create some sort of Reductio ad absurdum with this phrase "So whilst you might find it mentally repugnant that someone is sexually attracted to children unless they act on those thoughts there’s a) no way of knowing and b) no crime to prosecute." But that's a very easy bullet to bite. I think everyone, woke or unwork agrees that it's true. No struggle involved. People should not be prosecuted for pedophilic thoughts, any more than they should be prosecuted for thoughts about murder. To call your argument a straw man is an insult to scarecrows everywhere.

You also have a fallacious use of ambiguity when you claim that Society "trod this path in the 1970s and early 1980s" with the movement to legalize adult-child sexual relationships. Those relationships are actions not thoughts, and they hurt the children involved, so no woke person is require to defend them.

You would've had a more interesting argument if you had used polygamy instead of pedophilia. I think that polygamy should not be tolerated, or at least not be permitted to spread, even amongst consenting adults. But articulating exactly why is not easy.