Richard Dawkins is a hard-hitting communicator. What he says is remembered - even when it is not entirely accurately remembered - or removed from context. Why shouldn't he speak up on this issue, given he was indecently assaulted as a boy by a teacher? Is his view invalid because it is not popularly received? He was careful to frame his comments as his "view" and he acknowledged sexual abuse is harmful.
Research by Judith Hermann (a well-known researcher and author on the assessment and treatment of trauma in the early 1990s), concluded that for every 3 victims of sexual abuse, one will definitely benefit from treatment to resolve the abuse, another could benefit from some psychoeducation on how to process what happened but is fundamentally able to cope and the other will not need any intervention whatsoever because they have found it has not impaired their subsequent quality of life. To the best of my knowledge, that research has never been challenged but largely accepted as sound.
There are twin dangers in any discussion on pedophilia: Minimizing it or magnifying it. Any writer who wants to talk about "degrees" of abuse is usually on a hiding to no where - yet, it is a necessary discussion. Clearly, there are acts of abuse that are so incontrovertibly severely abusive that there is little disagreement on the level of "public" outrage. Yet, there are also acts of abuse that, although warranting condemnation and sanction, if not prosecution, are not so incontrovertibly severely abusive. It takes a brave - or unwise? - soul to speak to this aspect for fear of being misconstrued. As I have said, abusers need to be called to account for their behaviour, regardless of how seemingly inconsequential - but let's not scare any victim into concluding they must have been severely damaged when they may not have been. There I have said it (and I was molested by a member of the Salvation Army when I was a kid)!
One of the "dangers" if you like, of adopting a view that all sexual abuse is severe is inadvertently signal to victims that they have been severely damaged, if not physically and/or sexually, then psychologically - when that may not have been the case at all. But by thus speaking, the victim may be left believing something is wrong with her or him because they do not appraise themselves as so damaged.
At worst - and I stress this as an "at worst" scenario, it feeds into a questionable notion that all victims of sexual abuse, almost regardless of how defined, require intense psychotherapy to recover. This conveniently fosters accusations of there being a "sex-abuse-recovery industry" that makes money by professionally treating victims of sexual abuse.