Your edit is basically "You're arguing what CRT actually is and means but I wanna argue about what I think CRT is based on the narrow set of sources I personally interact with."
I can't prove that something doesn't exist, no. You have to prove that it does exist.
Hence you can't just say that I need to read more, I have read enough that I know the topic isn't something they care about so it is basically absent everywhere. If they actually do care about it I would like to read the book or study, I have searched a lot for them but they don't seem to exist.
And you can't say that the topic is so obscure that it wouldn't be covered anywhere. The rate at which men get shot by police and get put into prison more is one of the highest and most notable disparage effects any demographic faces, black people are twice as likely to get shot as white people, but men are 20 times as likely to get shot as women. If they really cared about those things then this would be covered in every introductory book to the subject, yet I fail to find even a single one who even brings it up as a footnote.
I'd be fine with CRT if it was practiced properly, but everything I've seen of it tells me it isn't practiced properly. That is what happens when you call everyone who criticises it racists or similar, then you don't listen to feedback and the field gets corrupted.
"I'd be fine with CRT if practiced properly is" is a weird statement.
It's a critical academic framework. "Practiced properly" it's something academics debate. There is no "proper practice" beyond applying the generalized methodology by examining outcomes and asking whether they're the result of bias.
That's not a debate worth having.