It seems you keep raising two different issues...
One is racial ability bonuses.
Probably different definitions of "inclusivity" then. Because to me, it seems like the issue is "people want to play any race as any class with any skin color or gender and not be significantly penalized for it."
That would be inclusivity within the game.
There is nothing is stopping you from having a different skin color, that's possible in a race, or a different gender, with no penalty. And many DMs might even let you have green skinned humans or a new shade of Dragonborn. That might depend on whether they actually fit in a given campaign setting (some campaign settings wouldn't even allow some PhB races because they weren't part of that world).
There is nothing stopping you from playing any PhB race as any class. And the biggest penalty you take for a different PhB race is missing a +1 bonus on the rolls with that stat. +1. So I would say there is nothing stopping any race from being any class with no significant penalty.
One concern you've expressed before is that some current non-PhB races are significantly disadvantaged compared to the PhB ones. I think that complaint is spot on and should be fixed. It might involve the Hobogoblins starting young or having a level penalty, or the Goblin being extraordinary in some fashion - but I think they should do something to make as many of the different humanoids playable as possible.
And I like your point about expanding it to other parts of the world. Adding more real-world literary, trope, folklore, and myth spanning diversity to the monster books - and then playable races - seems super.
Your other repeated point seems to be about ability scores mattering for doing things, especially combat (something also noted above by
@roger semerad above)
And if "strength" was only used precisely when "strength" was called for-- pushing a boulder or breaking a chain, then it really wouldn't be a problem.
The issue is more "Should the Goblin or Gnome Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin have the same chance to hit and have the same bonus output as the Orc Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin if they are gaining no significant advantage in any other area?" and that answer to that-- if we are saying that any race can be any class in the setting and be successful-- is definitely yes.
It is just I would imagine that that chance to hit and damage for the Orc comes considerably more from raw brute strength while for the Gnome or Goblin, its probably coming more from precision strikes.
The issue is the instance that bonus to attack and bonus to damage can only possibly come from Strength and all other ability scores are discarded from consideration. Sever that arbitrary connection and suddenly it doesn't really matter if one race has a higher strength score or not.
As has been noted by
@Deset Gled , there are builds that make hitting and damage more dependent on Dexterity than Strength. And the single +1 modifier is hardly the end of the world in making a character.
And this isn't the only example. Pretty much every class in the game has everything entirely revolving around one or two arbitrarily decided ability scores and if you don't have the maximum possible bonus in those scores, you are not going to be successful in performing the class's functions.
If you want a high CHR but low STR and DEX character who is just as good in combat as the high STR and DEX character but also good great at acting, is it also reasonable for someone to ask for a high STR but low INT and CHR character who is just as good in spell casting as the high INT and WIS character but also great at stacking rocks?
But a lot of games have significant portions devoted to things besides combat. Why is combat the only thing where abilities should be completely interchangeable? Why can't the high CHR (low STR) character also be great at stacking rocks, the high CHR (low DEX) character be great at acrobatics, the high STR (low CHR) character be great at acting , and the high STR (low INT) character be great at math and research? At some point, if CHR isn't needed for acting, and STR isn't needed for rock-stacking, and INT isn't needed to be a wizard, and CHR can let you punch just as hard as STR, you essentially have made ability scores meaningless except for cinematically describing the character. As I've said before, at that point I'd argue that it seems that you don't actually want to play Dungeons and Dragons, but rather some other game that focuses just on your cinematic descriptions and a universal dice table (and there are lots of folks who pick other games to suit their particular tastes).
But I like the idea of INT or WIS character to for combat to hit and damage because of a well chosen or sensed strike location. And the reason I'd argue for a class that does that instead of just letting any ability apply, is that I don't see how it's reasonable, say to have one who bases to hit in melee on CON or CHR. Just as there are some stats that I would argue don't make particular sense for casting wizard spells or picking pockets or tracking someone in the woods.
