activism demanding a regression in my feminism?

I've just been thinking recently how as a woman I've spent most of my life creating myself to be more palatable, more sweet, pliable, etc., because that's what society expects in women. I internalized misogyny to persuade people by being trying to be likable rather than being smart/right, and recently I've noticed myself regressing into those ways.

I recently gave a presentation and when I watched it back, the girlish mannerisms, the high tone of voice, it seemed like my high school self. And I was nervous in the presentation because I was saying something controversial about veganism. And I notice in any face-to-face activism I immediately revert to trying to be likable, sweet, and warm, because that is what is most persuasive to people, more so than facts. People judge by the messenger more than the message. And it reminds me of how hard it is to fight multiple battles at once. Because people will be more open to hearing radical opinions if I am not breaking gender norms. And people would be more open to women's rights if I didn't then bring up veganism. Even though I also believe true liberation fights for both, and they are intrinsically connected.

What if me not trying to be more palatable--which is an especially big pressure on vegans, as we are such a small movement--indirectly harms animals? Because I do believe as activists we have a responsibility to be as effective as possible. But then it gets into the territory of then do I need to lose weight? Would me fitting the conventional beauty standard more (in the same way of my personality fitting the conventionally accepted mould for women) allow me to have a greater impact for animals? The thing is I don't think the utilitarian argument here would be as cut and dry as it seems. I think there is an argument for the long term benefits of building a more inclusive movement.