I don't know if that's the issue people are bringing. I think people are talking about the active derogatory and communicated bias towards shorter men.

Not being attracted to short men and not wanting to reproduce with them is a personal thing. But going on record ridiculing them, saying bad things about them, mocking their height, that's not okay, and it's true that if it was done about their race it would be frowned upon, but seems to be acceptable for height.

I think that's a fair issue to bring up.

It also seems there might be real measurable pay-gaps, and that might need addressing as well.

"But going on record ridiculing them, saying bad things about them, mocking their height, that's not okay, and it's true that if it was done about their race it would be frowned upon, but seems to be acceptable for height."

I fully agree, and you can extend that to men being bald, and many other bodily aspects. I think in particular contexts it's fine to make the occasional joke but that's entirely different from making it a widespread thing.

There are a LOT of hair restoration ads in a particular commute path near me. Like it's a self-referential trope. I used to thing it was just funny. But then, I thought a bit about how a series of similar ads about breast augmentation would be met with criticism of body shaming. It's just... socially acceptable to handle male pattern baldness this way, I guess. It feels pretty gross when you pick it apart that way.

But one can detect and judge appearance much more quickly (instantly, in most cases) than personality. It seems much more efficient to select those you consider physically attractive first and then date to check for a compatible character, than the other way round. Just like (excepting bisexuals) most of us instantly disqualify 3.5 billion people as potential partners for being the wrong sex, even if they might have great characters.

You're right, but my point is that by slightly relaxing the physical criteria, you get a wider selection of personalities.

For example, it's ridiculous to ask for an exact height. Height is a spectrum. By demanding 6" or taller, you can't seriously justify how somebody that is 5"9 is an absolute deal breaker.

Similarly, if you're not attracted to fat people, you could still consider somebody a little overweight. Weight is not a static quality.

You may be attracted to brunettes, but I would opt to see that as a preference, not a hard requirement.

My point is that "attractive enough" is a better strategy as all of these things are ultimately unimportant if the personality doesn't match.

I've made this point too. By strictly limiting your physical standards you are also limiting your exposure to different personalities.

Yea and the problem is there is an institution actively suppressing smallness. Why not let smallness speak for itself?