It reveals very deep flaws in your ideological framework if you consistently take the position that “Pedojacketing harassment campaigns against trans women are good if happen to be actual Pedos”, especially when your definition of “actual Pedo” is “watches the bad sort of Japanese Cartoons”. Like from a coherent materialist point of view, these sorts of campaigns aren’t bad because they happen to get wrongly weaponised against innocent transfems. They’re bad because this sort of interpersonal harassment is completely useless for both dismantling the systems that make child abuse possible and meaningfully rectifying specific cases of abuse on an individual scale, even in the relatively rare* cases where the target does legitimately support or even engage in this abuse.
This ineffectiveness is especially egregious when the criteria for involvement in abuse isn’t based off any actual social relations but merely public engagement with sufficiently reactionary media; determining threat through a usually tenuous and always idealist association. And it’s even more egregious when the media being cited isn’t “reactionary” by any standard beyond the ignorant homogenisation of an entire nation’s media supported by various incorrect assumptions about its general social and legal conditions. The fact that an ostensible “Marxist-Leninist” can hold a position even remotely favourable to these tactics simply demonstrates how detached knowledge of Dialectical Materialism does not automatically translate into an ability to apply it.
*by the nature of these campaigns being most common and effective against those who are least able to defend themselves i.e. those who are most structurally disadvantaged by the very systems that create this abuse in the first place. One a structural level these tactics are oriented towards hurting the vulnerable by rhetorically exploiting the spectre of abuse, not at protecting the vulnerable from actual abuse