It’s all semantic games. CRT originated in the study of law (as they like to remind us when they lie and say CRT isn’t in lower schools now) and lawyers are probably the most skilled at twisting language to suit their needs. A lot of chapter-length codes start with a definitions section that tells you what they mean by this word, that word, the other word when they use it in the code, which does help with interpretation but can also confuse anyone who merely looking up the law that applies to a current situation, and doesn’t turn back to the definitions section to see how certain words might be used in a nonstandard way. That’s ultimately critical theory’s only game: come up with a fancy technical definition of a standard word like “oppression,” start using it without defining it or ever conceding they’re using a made-up definition, and rage against “ignorant” people who try to use the word correctly, so that gradually their altered definition becomes the “real” definition purely through attrition.