If ture, this would be somewhat surprising from a certain angle. As if saying "selecting for what's on the inside is too superficial and prejudiced, so we should be sure our selection is only skin-deep."

This is, admittedly, a bizarre state of affairs. But if we were to admit that IQ is meaningful, and could be affected by genes, then this gives credence to the 'race realists'! But we can't concede a single argument to the hated enemy, therefore intelligence is independent of genes. QED.

Attractiveness OTOH is obviously genetic, because people look like their parents.

I would bet against selection for things like sexual orientation or domesticity, and in favour of selection for general correlates of good health and successful life outcomes (which may in turn come along with other unintended characteristics).

I concur. I would however bet in favour of a large argument over sexual orientation.