This is the biggest difference between genuine diversity and faux-progressivism. You can tell when a story tries to just "tick all the boxes" so that it can appeal to a target demographic and/or get good PR. It's a cynical attempt made by people who don't genuinely care about being an ally, but just about making money off progressives. You can always tell the difference between that and actually progressive stories. For example Sex Education on Netflix is MUCH more genuinely progressive because it tries to sensitively and authentically tell the stories of individual characters, who happen to have different challenges some of which are to do with their marginalised identity (being black, being gay, being nonbinary) or with their history (growing up with an addict mother, growing up poor, growing up with a parent that teaches you to repress emotion, growing up in a sex-shaming household, being sexually assaulted) or their unique personalities (ie being obsessed with aliens). Eric could easily be seen as a "token black friend" character, but because his personality is fleshed out and he's not a stereotype, he has just as deep a character as Otis or Maeve. And because he's not actually a token, there are multiple black characters that are very important to the story, all who feel just as individual as the white characters do.

I think the difference between Sex Education and Sex and the City is striking and speaks to the heart of this divide between faux-woke and actual inclusivity.