"A [Washington] Post analysis also found an increase in grooming chatter... on platforms favored by right-wing activists..."

"By then, Christopher Rufo, a right-wing influencer credited with spearheading attacks on critical race theory, had turned his attention to grooming, his Twitter account shows. 'Grooming has a range of definitions: one can be groomed into an ideology, groomed into a gender identity, or groomed for physical abuse,' he wrote in one April Twitter post. Another April post described public schools as 'hunting grounds for sexual predators.' It linked to an essay he wrote citing a 2004 study by scholar Charol Shakeshaft, who estimated that 10 percent of K-12 students receive unwanted sexual attention from a school employee. In an interview, Shakeshaft told The Post that she is 'distraught' that her research has been used to justify claims that sex education amounts to grooming. She supports teaching comprehensive sex education. 'It gives the child a set of tools to help keep themselves safe,' she said...."

From a Washington Post article with a convoluted (and misleading) headline: "Claim that sex ed ‘grooms’ kids jolted Nebraska politics a year before it swept the nation/The unsubstantiated claim led to a backlash against sex ed that helped topple local Republican Party leaders and propelled a wave of far-right candidates for local and statewide school board."

Notice that the headline just says "sex ed" — twice — and not "comprehensive sex education." I think what's upsetting people isn't "sex ed" per se but a particular kind of sex ed. But you have to wade through the most tangled prose to figure out what kind of sex ed is producing this accusation that the state's education professionals intended to sexualize children and to undermine their defenses to sexual abuse. Even if the accusations are overblown, Nebraskans were not "jolted" over nothing, were they? Does The Washington Post expect us readers to look down on Nebraskans — those ignorant, hysterical, flyoever?

Looking for a more detailed description than the misleading "sex ed," I see: "modern sex education — including lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity" and "a comprehensive approach to sex ed that includes discussions of sexual orientation, contraception and consent." And, about Nebraska’s new "grade-by-grade guidelines for sex education":

Kindergartners would learn medically accurate terms for body parts, including genitalia, and about interracial and same-sex families. They would also learn about “consent” and “how to clearly say no.” First-graders would learn the definitions of gender identity and gender-role stereotypes. The meaning of sexual orientation would be explained in third grade.

It's just way too much sex for little kids. You're asking them to visualize sexual situations so that they can say "no." And you're demanding that children who are nowhere near the age of consent to contemplate the complexities of consent (a topic that confuses adults). Most people are inclined to create and defend a zone of innocence for children. Nebraskans, confronted with the state's different plan, sprang into action. Of course, there was backlash!