Now that is an interesting question.

> How would you picture protecting taste while at the same time adopting an inclusive (as in not putting people off) stance?

I don't, because I reject the definition.

Being inclusive does not mean "not putting people off". For starters, because measuring there doesn't work. How people react is not a direct reproducible consequence of your actions. Your actions might influence it, but they have this ginormous internal state that has much more control over it.

But that is a side-track.

The actual problem with the definition is that putting people off isn't bad.

Putting people off for arbitrary reasons like race, gender, etc is, but that "arbitrary reasons" is a strong modifier that significantly limits the set, and was dropped in your framing.