Example:

When a public institution codifies its policies (in writing) about sexual harassment/coercion/assault, it needs to be inclusive.

If somebody who was tasked with writing the language decides to word the institution's text as:

"No man [on our property] has the right to sexually coerce a woman; no women [on our property] should feel pressured by men into sexual coercion."

The wording should be altered/modified to something along the lines of:

"No person has the right to sexually coerce somebody else; no people [on our property] should feel pressured by others into sexual coercion."

Even with this linguistic change, a majority of the people being protected by the public institution will still -- statistically -- end up being women. However, in practice, this seemingly-minor change prevents transgender people and nonbinary people from being rendered "invisible"...while also protecting vulnerable male members of that institution.

By altering the language, here, the intent remains the same -- but the execution and message become far superior (when comparing the revamped language to the original language).

Did you want some other examples?