First off, I am going to be totally honest and state that I still don't know what the hell LeBesco is talking about when she mentions reclaiming the term fat and then talks about it being "revolting" in the mutinous sense of the word. No clue what she's getting at there. I don't see how you can reclaim the term "fat" in a positive manner and then turn around and call it revolting (though she does specify that this is in the mutinous sense of the word, and I don't know what she's getting at there). Anyone have any thoughts on this?
In regards to female trouble, I can definitely see how they reclaim the concept of "fat" and excess physical body, excess physicality in terms of violence and sexuality, excess femininity, and excess everything honestly. By hyper feminizing the female characters (especially Dawn) the film seems to scoff at and mock the gender binary and its gender norms/roles. Her anti-maternal instinct totally throws off the idea of motherliness that is attached to seemingly all of Hollywood's female characters. The fact that she does differ from the body norm of typical Hollywood actresses and makes that difference even more clear by wearing revealing and tight fitting clothes is another way this film seems to overturn the aesthetic hegemony that is placed upon women in the entertainment industry.
In response to the question about fat sexuality being queer sexuality...I don't know. I think that this question is one that can really only be answered on an individual/opinion basis. This isn't something we can attribute to fact or definition (and we all can probably agree that vocabulary definitions are pretty flimsy anyways, as I will touch on in a bit) because it relies heavily on perception. To me personally, fat sexuality is not queer, unless the individual it is applied to is queer in terms of deviating from the socially constructed gender binaries and/or deviates from the socially constructed norm of heterosexuality. This is just my opinion however.
Lastly, I believe that the phrase "artificiality of the truths we know" is referring to the way that people seem to use words as universal truths, as if the meanings and definitions do not change, and therefore words are the best way they have of understanding the world around them, but in reality words are always changing with their contexts and those who use them, so really words are not universal truths, their definitions are not by any means static, and in this way they are perhaps not a great way of understanding the world unless society first understands that words (their meanings) change with their contexts.
In answer to your question, here is my opinion.
I think that Lebesco means that, in the same way that the GLBT culture has taken the word queer, which used to have a negative connotation, and embracing it as their own, as if they are saying, "Yes, we are queer. You're right. What are you going to do about it?" It takes away the power that using the word negatively ever had. If fat people begin to embrace society's "revolting" view of fat and say, "Yes, we are fat. And we love it." It takes away the power of hate.
I read LeBasco's use of the word "revolting" as meaning (tongue in cheek) unattractive by normative standards of attractiveness and beauty, but also as revolutionary.
The act of reclaiming a word as means of taking the teeth out of verbal violence is a process of decolonization. What I believe LeBasco is saying is that "fat" bodies are attractive, not despite "fat" and being outside the norm but because fat in is inherently beautiful. Recognizing fat as beautiful and identifying with the term also means that it is no longer a word with a connotation of shame.
Well that part makes sense to me, the reclaiming of a word to take away its power of oppression and negative association. What doesn't make sense to me is that Lebesco seemed to call fat both grotesque and beautiful, and I don't see how you can make the claim that something is inherently grotesque, and then say it is inherently beautiful, because the two adjectives mean completely separate things, and I guess I just don't see how considering fat as grotesque can work as far as reclaiming the term goes. I might have just read the text/interpreted it wrong, but I feel the same message was implied by the movie as well, where Dawn was portrayed not as fat and beautiful but as fat and grotesque, so in that sense I don't see how this movie really works as reclaimation either, unless we are going with the "visibility at any cost" idea.
I think the term 'revolting' is used in the way as to suggest a revolt is occuring against the tradidional meanings of that word, not necessarily suggesting something is gross or undesirable.