Did you miss the part when he explained his reasoning, and then another part where after discussing his reasoning and state of current research he realized he was wrong, changed his mind, and retracted earlier statements? I guess you might have, it was years ago.
Or did you, again, mean correcting language so that allegations made were accurate, allegations that later turned out to be discredited by witness statement?
EDIT: Turns out the realization and retraction statement was published 3 days ago, so in all honesty you could argue this was a reaction to mounting public pressure - but there isn't much evidence that he's lying here either.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."