I think I'd appreciate some sort of "semantic grouping" of individual changes more than drawing someone random line and classifying all changes below it as "trivial".
The problem is that even a lot of the changes that normally constitute clutter can become relevant in certain situations or even introduce bugs.
One example would be ordering of Python imports: Changing the order of imports should have no effect on program behaviour if all your packages are well-behaved - and in 99.99% of cases it indeed hasn't. But the fact remains that imports are statements that are executed and can have side-effects. If a package does something nontrivial during load, changing the import order can have effects. Hiding such a change could mask introduction of a bug.
Hiding changes can also lead to confusion if you are trying to understand a series of changes that are based on each other, or if all changes of a commit are hidden. I've had the latter situation with IntelliJ, where the working tree was shown as "unclean" but the diff was completely empty. Solution: The diff wasn't actually empty, IntelliJ was just set to hide the changes.
I think a more interesting solution would be to build a sort of "tree of changes": At the bottom, you'd have the individual changes in the file; one level up, the changes would be grouped into higher-level operations, such as "change formatting", "rename identifier", "remove field", "move function", etc.
If possible, those could be grouped into even higher-level changes, such as "implement new class" or "extract expression into function", etc.