So are you are saying that pedophilia is an orientation, if it cannot be controlled and changed? So it should be added to LGB, like another orientation?

I don't understand this sentiment, you're not the first to share it, I've seen it elsewhere on topics that are not pedophilia. If I say heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, nobody cares, right? It's just a statement of fact. Another, more precise way, of phrasing that statement is that heterosexuality is an example of a sexual orientation. Nothing in that statement implies that heterosexuality should be added to the LGBTQ+ initialism, but somehow, that intent is often ascribed to the person making the statement that XYZ is a sexual orientation.

Nothing about pedophilia--having the attraction--strikes me as volitional. It appears to be identical to heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality with the obvious and very unfortunate difference that the age of attraction is generally under 10 years and does not correspondingly increase with the age of the pedophile.

There's significant biomarkers in pedophilic men--lower IQ, shorter in height, left-handedness, structural differences in the white matter (wiring) of their brains. These are not volitional things.

What would the definition of sexual orientation be? Well, I'd say, it's obviously sexual, has an early age-of-onset, it's not volitional, it's innate, immutable, and life-long.

Anyhow, my point is, pedophilia looks like a sexual orientation to me (statement of fact) and the letter "P" for pedophilia should not be added to the LGBTQ+ initialism (my personal opinion that happens to be quite popular.) I don't understand why people constantly conceptualize that any sort of non-heterosexuality must be added to the initialism. If you could help me understand that, I would appreciate it. It would be useful to know because there's a bunch of things waiting in the wings that want a place in the alphabet soup.