I don't see that writeup as creating such a space: I see it as attempting to claim all the worthwhile space. (I didn't include the whole thing, since it wandered off in less vivid directions, but there was another sentence near the end that attempted to define the New Weird as "the only fantasy left that doesn't suck," basically.) As it was a panel description at Readercon, I doubt it was aimed at publishers; readers would be the main audience (with authors making up another large percentage, given the guest list for that con), but is that really an effective way to pitch it to such people? When they might be very fond of some of the works being dismissed? Not to mention that most of it has nothing to do with what I, or the friends I talked to at the con, associate with the New Weird. (Which I've never found all that unclassifiable, honestly; the examples I know of it turn rather significantly on the incorporation of the grotesque.)

I'd disagree with you about the Goodkind/Le Guin comparison mostly because he's saying "I'm not fantasy because I'm important," whereas she says "that isn't fantasy because it isn't important." (Doing a gross injustice to her actual point, but I understand and sympathize with why that article of hers annoys you.)