Let me add, here, that I really think that "2e" can be an inclusive term-- but agree that it needs to be reserved for conditions which result in what most persons would consider "disabling" in that they impact the major activities of life.
Basically, 2e, in my experience (lived and observed) is when a child has both gifted traits and has a disability-- not merely extreme facets of being cognitively extraordinary. (I know, I know-- as if that weren't enough to go on with-- believe me, I don't have a child with emotional OE's or a spectrum disorder, and her asynchrony alone can be pretty eye-watering, so I am definitely NOT minimizing that.)
I do think that calling intensity "2e" though is probably not good, because it's merely a possibly facet of high LOG, and educators should be aware that there isn't anything "wrong" with a child like that. Sometimes it's just asynchrony, no matter how out of step it makes such children among typical peers.
The two things (2e) are often at odds with one another in terms of what can/should be done for each exceptionality. It can feel as though any solution is wrong-- and this is where I think it parts ways with regular gifted considerations.
Disability adds in a second set of (often competing) considerations-- and meeting both GT needs and those related to disability can be downright Faustian.
I agree that conflating some of the more extreme traits of giftedness (perfectionism, emotional OE's, etc.) with disability is unwarranted and potentially damaging to children who really do have unrelated disabilities that require accommodations that may/may not have anything to do with their needs as gifted learners. It's often just a complicating set of concerns that must be taken into consideration alongside of their giftedness.
Hard, hard choices there, too-- like those faced by many parents via asynchrony, only magnified by a factor of 10 or 100. As I said-- it can feel as though EVERY choice is wrong. Every decision is made via least-worst decision-making.
