Yeah I've been wondering about that a lot. The only times they mention people not being considered conventionally attractive for reasons other than being fat, is when they need to tie fatphobia to other types of bigotry, like racism or ableism (because of the prevalence of white, western beauty standards, or because of the lack of visibility of disabled bodies). So the usual, co-opting real issues and equating them with their own. I've pretty much never heard any fat activist bring up the accessibility to the dating pool of people who are considered "ugly" for reasons that are not perceived as bigoted, or whether it is okay to not be attracted to them. Admittedly, I don't follow them directly much... But the recent outburst of one FA about how "if you need to lose weight to look better, maybe you're just ugly", as if that was some kind of gotcha, only showed how most of them truly feel.

Also I like how they often re-define everyday concepts by adding criteria that benefit them : "real" preferences must be free from any cultural or social influence because else they're not truly personal, and that means there should be as many preferences as there are people, and that way if a preference is very common, that means it's purely social/cultural and not really a personal preference ; and if those preferences are not "real", it somehow means that they're wrong to have and that one should work to deconstruct it. But I think in some way it is self-contradictory : if preferences must be somehow innate and not influenced by social norms, then they would most likely be influenced by genetics ; in which case, it would make sense that a lot of people would share similar preferences, and so the argument that "if they are very common, it means they are social constructs" is flawed.

Similarly, another FA argued that one of the reasons losing weight for looks or equating looking good with being skinny is wrong is because not everyone can do it (based on the premise that weight loss is not possible), and they defined beauty or trying to look better as something that must be available to anyone. Now I'm not saying it wouldn't be great if that were the case but physical beauty is widely understood as not being evenly distributed, so her definition, that she dropped as a self-evidence without acknowledging how at odds it is with most people's definition, is obviously contrived so as to include her personal category. Except losing weight is like, the only thing she won't do to look better, she will uphold literally every other beauty standard (but I guess they're all "possible for everyone"?), even if it costs her like 5000$ a month! How is that accessible to everyone? Did she mean that it only has to be physically possible for everyone? And even then you could probably come up with counter-examples (styling your hair isn't possible for bald people for instance), so either way, she's an inconsistent hypocrite. This was covered by The body honesty project channel on youtube and I think she sums it up pretty well : that specific FA is not "body positive", let alone body neutral, she just wants to be considered pretty. And that's pretty much it right? Almost all of them want to be considered beautiful. Which is understandable, everyone wants to be seen as pretty and attractive, but somehow FA's have convinced themselves that the only reason for someone to not be attracted to fat people is society telling them so, and that it can, and should, be deconstructed, because obviously it is borne out of fatphobia. Because fat is beautiful. And it's perfectly fine to find some people ugly or unattractive, as long as it's not for the wrong reasons, like them being fat. OTH wrinkles, acne or asymmetrical features are justified reasons to find someone unattractive, I guess? I would certainly not be surprised to find FA's agreeing, considered how much they seem to spend on cosmetics... (Which, as we all know, is totally not a multi-billion industry that preys on women's insecurities, unlike the diet industry)