I totally get that - I've always bought the smallest Mac laptops possible over the years - Air; PowerBook G4; MacBook. That 12" MacBook has been the only truly ultra-portable Mac in recent years. I'd often choose to run as part of my commute to work and I could put that laptop in my rucksack and not know its there. Anything bigger than that and I was always aware that I had a chunk of metal on my back. I loved that machine, despite its limitation.A lot of people don't understand that ultra-portability is more of a pro feature rather than a budget concession. I'd pay as much as I could to get the best performing ultra-portable MacBook possible. If that meant it only had a base M2, I still consider that a win. Obviously, even in the MacBook Pro lineup, Apple has already conceded that size will limit performance as the 14" MacBook Pro doesn't have the same top-end performance as the 16". I could imagine the 12" still wearing the Pro badge and using a base M2 or even a reduced-core M2 Pro. Either way, my wallet will jump out of my pocket the day it is announced. Even if they called it the "MacBook Mini" and it only had a 3 year-old M1.
So yes, I agree with you - I guess I'm thinking that Apple doesn't think like that when it comes to what is "Pro", but maybe things are changing. Especially if they could design something around an M2 SOC and make it ultralight but with good performance - maybe when running on power you could run it in a "high performance" mode or something.
Interesting times though!