Once you get a good handle on the form of the motte and bailey argument, you see it everywhere on the activist left, and it is a particularly below-the-belt form of argument and quite fallacious, but it is effective in the left's focus on social maneuvering instead of rational discourse.
The bailey is the radical position the left wants to enact. The motte is the loosely related but more sane position to which the left retreats when the bailey position is attacked.
Bailey position: All students must be indoctrinated in critical race theory.
When this position is attacked: Critical race theory teaches students never-ending racial grievance. Critical race theory is un-falsifiable. Critical race theory makes blacks into permavictims and whites into permavictors, etc.
They retreat to the motte position: Hey we just want students taught about slavery and segregation in history class.
Bailey position: Kids need an in-depth grooming regimen in the ways of sexual kink and sodomy at drag queen story hour.
Motte position: Hey we just want kids to be taught about tolerance and love.
Bailey position: We want to seize the means of production and execute all who oppose us.
Motte position: We want a living wage for the working man and woman.
Every single time the left is able to re-enter the bailey, though, they are able to expand it even if just by and increment.