Many biblical inerrantists limit the term to “faith and morals”: that is, the biblical authors made no errors in terms of their communication on theological and ethical topics.
But that more modest inerrancy still fails. For example, multiple biblical authors endorse severe corporal punishment of children, actions we would consider abusive and immoral today. They also accepted slavery whereas people today assume that such economic relationships are wrong in principle. If we’re right, their ethics were flawed. As for theology, the Hebrew Scriptures are revealed against a backdrop of polytheism and a denial of the realm of nature: instead, cataclysmic natural events are understood to be a direct manifestation of divine beings punishing humans. We don’t accept that either.
To insist that the authors of Scripture remain wholly without error in all the ethical and theological content of their written statements is simply absurd. It’s a shibboleth of conservatism and nothing more. That’s not to say there is no role for the concept of inerrancy: there is. But it must be tethered to divine authorial intention, period. I explain the concept in Jesus Loves Canaanites.