I don't think documentation is really necessary when pretty much all media in the US portrays white, young, thin, slightly athletically toned, clear-skinned, white-toothed, symmetrical-faced people with societally-approved matching gender characteristics as "attractive". Characters who exhibit those traits are portrayed/coded as attractive, and they are the people put in front of the camera on things like the news. Just saying "attractive" when talking about someone with those features is basically saying that anyone who does not have those features is inherently not attractive, when in reality many people have different opinions on what they find attractive.
To be honest the line about documentation was just me being venomous, and referring to people using arguments they can't actually articulate themselves. My entire point is just they are hedging their statements.
I don't think documentation is really necessary when pretty much all media in the US portrays white, young, thin, slightly athletically toned, clear-skinned, white-toothed, symmetrical-faced people with societally-approved matching gender characteristics as "attractive". Characters who exhibit those traits are portrayed/coded as attractive, and they are the people put in front of the camera on things like the news. Just saying "attractive" when talking about someone with those features is basically saying that anyone who does not have those features is inherently not attractive, when in reality many people have different opinions on what they find attractive.
To be honest the line about documentation was just me being venomous, and referring to people using arguments they can't actually articulate themselves. My entire point is just they are hedging their statements.