I forgot about the 12 hour rule, but that is still just a requirement to notify, it is not a ban on contact with children. The PPU cannot vary the terms of an SHPO without going to court. Plus, the SOR, on it's own, doesn't stop an offender having contact with children. To say that nobody on the SOR is allowed contact with children is not correct.
What is true though, is the PPU have a wide range of powers to interfere in someone's life, under their public protection remit. In relation to this case, they have a power to disclose to the child's parent, provided it is necessary and proportionate to the risk involved, and that there is no other way to address the risk. The interesting thing about the way this SHPO was written is that it left a loophole, presumably because the court felt there was no risk of harm to male children.
From a practical point of view, any contact with any children, even if not specifically forbidden by the SHPO, will raise questions in the PPU's suspicious minds. If this was a one-off incident of supervised contact, you could argue disclosure was not proportionate to the risk involved. Giving the offender an unofficial warning to stay away from kids, might have been a more suitable response. If it happened more than once, then disclosure would be inevitable, and if the PPU were really worried, they could, as a last resort, go back to the court and ask for the SHPO to be changed, to ban all contact with male children as well.
The reality of life on the SOR is that you should probably avoid any and all contact with kids, just in case. No matter what the court thought about your level of risk, when drawing up the SHPO, the PPU always assume the worst. They believe all SO are looking for a chance to reoffend, at every opportunity.
People whose offences were committed on the internet are presumed to be just contact offenders, who haven't had a chance to commit a contact offence yet. An SO who goes on holiday, to say, Thailand, will be assumed, by the PPU, to be going there to commit an offence. It could just be that the person fancied a holiday in Thailand, but the PPU won't accept that. They couldn't care less that the SO has no foreign travel restrictions on his SHPO, or that his offences were non-contact. The presumption of guilt, based on their own assessment of his risk, will outweigh all of that.
You could challenge the PPUs interpretation of the SHPO, but if you did that, they might interpret it as you having 'negative orientation to rules' and increase your risk. That would mean more frequent visits and greater scrutiny of your life. If they wanted, they could to go to court to make your SHPO even more restrictive and you would be made to pay the court costs for that. In short, it isn't worth the grief. Unless they are making your life unbearable, it's better to be compliant and go along with their requests.