So, when we talk about a ruleset being "inclusive", as far as I have seen that's largely been about representation. But I have a strong suspicion that there's far more than that here.
Let us take just one example. We can look back at the basic implied story of OD&D and 1e, the original "old school game" story - a person starts with little power, and by hook, crook, and/or violence and use of squad-level wargaming, acquires treasure from others, growing powerful until they gather an army or group of followers and become rulers of a populated area of land as a right of their accrued wealth and might.
I'm saying that fundamental story may not be all that appealing or relatable, to, say, a queer 17 year old woman in the US today.
And it is not enough to say the game "can be played" in many ways. As an entry point, the appealing way ought to be basically the bleedingly obvious, default way the system encourages you to go by its construction. New players should not have to work out how to make the system do what they want - they should have a system that just does it naturally, right out of the box.
The thing is, the implied story that you see wasn't the actual story that many played. That is the amazing thing about games of the imagination.
But more importantly, I think there are two equally bad types of errors to make:
1. "What is appealing to people like me is appealing to everyone, therefore they must like what I like;" and
2. "What is appealing to people like me is not appealing or relatable to people unlike me, therefore they will not like what I like."
Weirdly, I don't think that primary problem in our society is (1). The primary problem is, and has been for a long time, (2).
"Girls don't like sports."
"Gay people don't like country music."
"Black people don't play golf."
When we start with the assumption that "the other" is fundamentally unlike us (cannot relate to the the same things we do), it becomes easy to ignore them. Instead, it is usually better to let people in with no assumptions, and see what new and amazing things they bring!
I mention this because I believe you mean well, but so much exclusion starts with the premise that "things I like can't be liked by (this other group), therefore it's okay (that this other group) isn't involved in this thing that I like."
EDIT- to the extent this is unclear, people always argue, "It's okay that Pretentious Country Club doesn't have black people- golf just isn't appealing to them." Or, "I don't know why we have equal opportunities under Title IX; everyone knows girls don't like sports."
Yeah, it seems silly, doesn't it? And yet .... that's the argument of exclusion. It's always better to start with the belief that all people would like to do something, and then examine why they are not doing it (if they aren't).