If we are not allowed to have visual imagery of Jesus, what does this mean?

They are not for obvious reasons. Just look at Hutardo's own words regarding this in OP's second image. Baptists who use the staurogram, use it without any knowledge of its role of visually portraying Christ in the early copies of the New Testament texts. That's where it came from.

Because of it's role and how it is used in its earliest days, what that proves is that its function is that of a simplified form of a crucifix anyone can see in a Roman, Orthodox or Lutheran church. It isn't the same as a Baptist like you claiming to support how the early Christians use it

Crucifixes are still gaudy to me and the purported depictions of Jesus on them can be controversial.
Better to stick to two dimensional things and better than that to avoid anthropomorphic art.
One shouldn't be idealizing or equating some man made conception with the divine. Having such things around easily lead people to attachment to inanimate objects and man made renditions. Like some ladies I've heard saying that the virgin statue in their yard is mad at them for them having neglected it recently by not having talked with it.

If covering Jesus loins on crucifixes out of respect is considered to be acceptable being that it's said he may have been crucified nude, than under a similar logic should the acceptance of a simpler pictograph symbol over a more realist depiction be considered for those who have issue with more explicit artistic portrayal.

The only reason for a simplistic depiction is due to the medium it is first employed in, written texts. It wouldnt make sense for an elaborate depiction of Christ for something meant to serve as a visual aid in reading.

After all during the time period of those staurograms, human depictions of Christ are known such as the Good Shepherd.

It should only be concerning if it is too realistic in nature

Furthermore scripturally speaking if a crucifix is hallowed, it isn't through the depiction of Jesus nailed on it but rather through it's shape as a cross symbol.

The art itself isn't a problem from the iconoclast perspective, just the direction of prayer or excessive attachment towards it.

Iconoclasts would reject any antromorphic depiction. In fact that is precisely what the Byzantine Iconoclasts did

Well I guess I was referring less to the historical iconoclasts and more to contemporary ones.

In the case of the Staurogram, it is literally meant to present a figure on the cross too. As Hutardo says the Loop suggests the head of a crucified figure

If images are accepted it isnt iconoclasm, unless it's the rejection of the presence of the image in religious contexts.

Yes so what I'm saying from the scriptural perspective is that and crucifixes if they are made holy it's probably from its shape.
I'm going by the reference to it in the non canonical epistle to Barnabas such as the one to Moses' making of a cross shape with his arms in the Israels fight with Amalek in Exodus 17:8-13, as well as elsewhere in the OT and Bible like Ezekiel's mention of a Taw mark which is likely referring to a T or X shape rather the form of the letter in square Hebrew script .

In that sort of sense, sure I agree. But is that really a perspective taken by Baptists and Evangelicals?