Many have written that the more inclusive and all-encompassing "gifted" identification becomes, the less well it serves the intellectual outliers who most need different supports, approaches, curriculum, and pacing (and for whom gifted education was ostensibly created).
Unfortunately, the same may be true of some forums.
I agree very much with these ideas.
On the one hand, this forum is titled "gifted issues," not "HG+ issues." On the other hand, the Davidson Institute serves HG+ kids. As far as I'm aware, there really isn't another place on the web that focuses on the educational needs of HG+ kids, though there are a variety of organizations that serve mildly and moderately gifted kids.
Inclusiveness seems like a nice idea. I wouldn't say that a public forum should only allow certain people. At the same time, a very common complaint here is that when a gifted program or a class aimed initially at gifted students becomes too inclusive, the population it was meant to serve doesn't get served anymore.
If I understood the OP correctly, the writer annoyed some people because she didn't define giftedness inclusively enough. That's a (very common) reaction to a trait a child was born with. To me, it's why I think that HG+ kids and their parents deserve ONE PLACE that focuses on extreme outliers without having to feel obligated to include everyone so as not to make anyone feel left out.
It's like...it's okay to be rude to HG+ people ("you must have hothoused him/you are so pompous for bragging about your kid's high IQ/etc.), but it's not okay to say, "Okay then, I'll find a HG+ sandbox to play in" because suddenly that sandbox becomes a hotbed of elitism and pomposity.
I am NOT saying that this attitude prevails here. I'm saying that too much inclusiveness can start off like a wonderful idea and end up sidelining the people a program was originally designed to benefit.
