You make a lot of good points about how P+P is a poor way to conceptualize the situation, but a fair fraction of the points apply to this goal, too.

Why is it useful to definitionally say that white people can experience racial bigotry directed against them but not "racism"? Doesn't that just encourage white people to discount "racism" as a racially bigoted term--and then you've lost the powerful negative affect that has (rightfully) become attached to the term, and now we're back to asking whether white people as a race can experience racial bigotry.

Instead, why not ask: what is the degree of impact of this racial bigotry / racism? Isn't that the actual reason to argue against claims of reverse racism? If there were really bad consequences of "reverse racial bigotry", it's not like we should ignore them just because we pulled some rhetorical tricks out of the CRT box. The reason to ignore it would be if it the consequences are not actually bad enough to worry about.