How do you understand the claim "sexual strategy is amoral"?

The statement "sexual strategy is amoral" they usually explain that it means "information about what strategy is effective in acquiring sex is amoral". Now, the claim that information, especially the act of spreading information, is amoral is false - if someone wants to murder a person who's hiding and you know that person's location, telling the murderer about it is not amoral. However, the claim that discussion about effective sexual strategies is amoral is much more defensible than such claim about acting on those strategies.

However, the way I usually see this claim brought up seems to assume a different meaning - one where "everything that is done in order to get sex is amoral". You can see this exemplified in posts such "if sexual strategy is amoral, can a woman lie about her n count?" - it seems to ask a question of "since it's not immoral to do anything in order to fulfill a sexual strategy, is it immoral to lie about n count?" This is an insidious way of looking at sexual strategy, since it might lead to justifying all sorts of immoral acts. This way of thinking is often espoused by people who claim to be "against moralizing", which is an especially insidious outlook - when "moralizers" express a disaproval of something, the "anti-moralizers" are quick to tell you about how your disaproval is wrong, which is moralizing in the same way. You can especially see it TRPSubmitter's post claiming that sexual strategy is amoral:

Sexual strategy is amoral. There is no right or wrong. Stop projecting what you think is right onto what a random horny girl should or should not do; she will do it anyway. If you don't like it, don't do it. And obviously telling another man what or what not to do is equally dumb.

Clearly this paragraph contains orders telling people what to do and not to do, the same way as moralizers order people what to do based on their morality. As you can see, "anti-moralizers" moralize just as much - the only difference between them and the moralizers is that the latter are honest about what they're doing, while the "anti-moralizers" pretend to be above moralizing. Therefore, they are fundamentally dishonest and not worth taking seriously.

If "sexual strategy is amoral" refers to knowledge about sexual strategy, then this claim is dubious, and if it refers to acts in service of sexual strategy, then it's straight up wrong. Since there seems to be confusion about the meaning of this phrase, I'd like to ask you how you understand it so that there's less confusion in the future.