If that is true, it is only true because email providers are making a choice on behalf of consumers, namely, the user writes plain-text emails (at, e.g., gmail.com) then the provider converts it to HTML.
HTML works fine, and adds important features like formatting text and links. HTML without images is ideal, as images are often blocked (as you mention).
I prefer plaintext too, but for a marketing email (ie, "confirm your account") consumers will think it feels "off" or unpolished given what they are used to. It will likely lead to churn. Clients can opt to view plaintext if they prefer.
Edit: also it's a bit funny the page you link, useplaintext.email, uses lots of HTML formatting.
And in defense of html emails: for marketing missions there's nothing like a nice piece of visual design -- layout, color, possibly some type design, but not necessarily images since folks like me turn them off because of tracking -- to get attention and drive interest. Also, html can allow for column layout that could keep email content shorter than plain text version