Except the studies being cited defined the terms in a manner that reduced the number of homosexuals even when the attack was homosexual.
Homosexual apologists use both methods in attempts to reduce the perceived threat from homosexuals. Redefining attackers as 'not-gay' and attempting to increase the rate of homosexuality in the general population...
Dan I believe even you agreed earlier that there are more gays/bi's in the population than just the self-identified group.
But looking at the self-identified group, there are a reported 8 million in the US. The DOJ states that in 2012 there were a reported 62,939 cases of child sexual abuse, 82% of which were females. That leaves 18% or approximately 11 thousand males who were sexually abused. If all of them were abused from just the self-identified group that would be a rate of about one-tenth of one percent. If of course the population of gays/bi's is actually higher, then the rate would be even lower.
I can't argue whether the gay gene predisposes an attraction for children. But I can argue that most sexual abuses come from heterosexuals which would challenge that assertion.
As for whether those who would argue with your thesis are "gay apologists", I would say that when the left claims that gun owners are responsible for gun crimes or that Christians are responsible for attacks on abortion clinics, or the population of people who drink are responsible for drunk driving, I guess I like to challenge such assertions. People on both sides of the aisle tend to hold an entire group responsible for the wrongdoings of a tiny fraction of the population.
Again, make no mistake. Child sexual abuse regardless of who commits it should be vigorously prosecuted to the highest degree possible. Focusing on one segment of the population in a generalization tends to take the emphasis off of teachers, various youth leaders, doctors, priests, ministers, and family members (a large part of the perpetrators). Education is important, and should emphasize real threats based on language, unwanted touching, other body language, and most importantly that these advances can and more often than not do come from those we may know well. Hopefully we've advanced over the old "Don't talk to strangers" caution as the main threat a child can face.