I'm not sure that it is constructive to equivocate accessibility that works around disabilities and the desire to be able to write code in whatever dialect of English you happen to write in.
By that token, you might start requiring that all code is universally localizable, which will make our problems even worse if you don't sit down and publish a few academic-grade linguistics papers establishing a theoretical basis for the automatic localization tooling you would need to design. You can rabbithole on this argument all day long.
The above is extreme, because it shows how absolutely insane the required effort can be for something whose impact is not quantified with respect to the rest of Rust's present goals. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean we should invest time in it. We could just staple the entire calculus of constructions to Rust's type system, and that would be useful to some people, but is it really worth it over moving forward concrete type system improvements with known impact, like const generics?
Consider whether you have an XY problem: whether what you're trying to do is something that requires language support (or, whether you're really trying to do something else altogether).