I think the reasons are certainly cultural. Underneath it all, some of the reasons for adjective-assigning reticence are:
1. An expansion of the concept of 'harm', so that now even casual word usage is thought to be evidence of causing harm. (ex: "Indirectly suggesting some students are 'not gifted' harms them")
2. Operating on an ideal that we are all born equal (not speaking of 'rights' here, but competencies, value to society, etc.). We are but a blank slate, to be molded by social structures. Any unequal outcome on anything has to be a sort of 'systemic discrimination'. (ex: "I see that there's some group that is underrepresented in that gifted program, therefore they obviously are discriminated against")
3. Operating as if humans do not have free will. Any underperformance on anything is not their fault, it's "the system".
I agree with your assessment. I guess I'm having a hard time coming up with any way to oppose these trends beyond finding them laughably absurd. Do you have any suggestions for how to seriously engage with proponents of these ideas?
I certainly haven't tried extensively yet, so I'm really just speculating here. I think one of the growing challenges to objectively and critically thinking through issues in the West (particularly America) is the growing obsession with 'groups' over 'individuals'.
America seems to be rekindling a bent for things like racial essentialism and wanting to bring the idea of identity groups to the forefront of any conversation on anything. This tendency has a way of clouding the underlying reality on any given issue. Culturally, there is an expectation that you must reinforce these ideas in conversation, and pay lip service to the group-based narratives or else be labeled a 'group-ist'. It then becomes very difficult to actually talk about the underlying principles and factors at play on any given issue.
My personal take is you have to sort of utilize this group-based thinking yourself as a sort of trojan horse, to then attempt to highlight the true underlying principles/factors at play in the conversation. It's a way to sort of short-circuit the uncritical thinking that many have around issues of the day.
Why oppose it at all? Why get so hung up on the term? If anything, "accelerated learning" seems like a better term for these programs than "gifted and talented". Gifted and talented are non-specific and poorly-defined terms. Accelerated learning is exactly what it sounds like.
1. An expansion of the concept of 'harm', so that now even casual word usage is thought to be evidence of causing harm. (ex: "Indirectly suggesting some students are 'not gifted' harms them")
2. Operating on an ideal that we are all born equal (not speaking of 'rights' here, but competencies, value to society, etc.). We are but a blank slate, to be molded by social structures. Any unequal outcome on anything has to be a sort of 'systemic discrimination'. (ex: "I see that there's some group that is underrepresented in that gifted program, therefore they obviously are discriminated against")
3. Operating as if humans do not have free will. Any underperformance on anything is not their fault, it's "the system".