Um, yeah, about that. You see, in most places, you'd probably be right. But Kathleen lives in Oregon.

Oregon has a draft, but official (and linked on their web site) set of guidelines for educational goals for their (mandatory) ethnic studies curriculum. Including for kindergarten.

Here's a goal for kindergarten: "Make connections and describe the similarities and differences between self and others related to race, ethnicity, culture, disability, and gender identity." Hmmm, do you smell any intersectionality there?

And here's another: "Identify examples of unfairness or injustice towards individuals or groups and the “change-makers,” who worked to make the world better." Does that look a little teensy bit like 'racism is normal science', dressed up to look a bit more positive?

Let's get to third grade and see where we're going with these ideas: "Understand and analyze the impact of systems of power, including white supremacy, institutional racism, racial hierarchy, and oppression." Well, huh. Sounds a little bit familiar, doesn't it? And it's third grade after all--who needs the positivity anymore?

You could call this something other than CRT, but the similarities are unmistakable.

So, maybe you'd have been right if you weren't talking about Oregon. But you were. And this is Oregon.

(I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the link to the document I'm quoting from.)

(Addendum--I think most of your post is excellent! It does a great job of explaining the history, the issues, the wrongheadedness of some of the objections. I just wanted to point out that in the case of Oregon kindergarten specifically, you made an assumption that appears incorrect.)