Admittedly anecdotal, I've been working as an interpreter for deaf university students for about 13 years now in several areas of the US, with a whole slew of my students being M.Ed. students. You're correct that they're not having teachers instruct their kindergarteners on the writings of Kimberle Crenshaw, but indeed there is a high emphasis on CRT serving as a framework for intersectional pedagogy, whether any of us feels that's a reasonable approach or not.
Speaking personally, a correction to account for a lack of consciousness as to the real and lasting impacts of social and systemic racism is very obviously long overdue, and I do wish more parents would involve and educate themselves as to their particular child's situation rather than defaulting to the boogeyman. But there is indeed a "boogeyman" out there in the form of a significant amount of educators who go beyond a general and consumable introduction to social justice, having been conditioned to incorporate aspects of identity to a degree and at an age at which there's no way a child's going to be cognitively equipped to yet reconcile with.
I find the "it's not really CRT" line needlessly divisive and frankly bordering gaslighting, as anyone familiar with intersectional pedagogy knows well the supporting intellectual school driving it. And honestly those who aren't familiar with it probably understand CRT as little as the people who are deathly afraid of it. That said, what I do appreciate is it seeming to have shifted the Overton Window to the point you've got the most yokel or yokels admitting, "Yeah, something needed to change, but not like this." And from there I'd like to think we can work together on the "ok, then how?" rather than what getting caught up in pedantry.