I believe that we can be inclusive of those exceptions and treat them as unique things that are within the definition, rather than placing them outside the definition. I would rather spend the energy to evolve definitions to include people rather than tell people they are marginalia.
It sounds like you disagree.
It is not inclusive to call a woman a “birthing person” it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth. Are women who can’t become pregnant men? Of course not.
We have let politeness run away with us. It’s time to kindly, but firmly tell people there are two genders. It’s not a kindness to lie to a person, even if they ask for the lie.
Not out of the group of "women", so "Are women who can’t become pregnant men?" doesn't make sense.
EDIT: and indeed the creepy arguments centering womanhood around periods or pregnancy, which do actually exclude women who can't give birth from womanhood, tend to come from a subset(!) of the people that also are strongly against such language, not the people for it.
Woman who can't give birth are still women. Women who cannot menstruate are still women. We are not removing anyone from the set of women.
What we are saying is that, in addition to women there are also people who do not recognize themselves as women, but who can give birth or menstruate.
So, we could say "women, men, and other gendered people who give birth..." or "birthing women, men, and other gendered people".
But that's a mouthful. All genders are people, so we choose "people who give birth" since it includes women AND people who are not women.
So yes, it's inclusive because it's including women and not women, rather than only women.