Let me make a few basic points here.
1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them.
2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the issue has come up, there has been a policy (somewhat de facto, but with high-level support) for several years of blocking self-declared pedophiles and especially pedophile activists from editing. The justifications for the policy include those mentioned previously in this thread. There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to describe themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, but are simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether they should be blocked or not.
3. I have never seen a serious argument made that self-declared pedophiles are protected by the Foundation's non-discrimination policy, and I certainly have never seen any suggestion that the Foundation would overrule a block or ban made by local project administrators on this basis, much less has this actually happened or is there any likelihood it would ever happen. The question that opened this thread, about the wording of the policy, is at best a purely theoretical one.
4. It is entirely 100% predictable from experience (cf the En-Wiki userbox wheel war case from early 2006) that this thread will quickly degenerate, if it hasn't already, into extreme rhetoric and name-calling without producing much, if any, usual output. I suggest in the strongest terms that this not happen.
Newyorkbrad