But again - should we use something that is innately genetic and unchangeable as a means for “compensating”?
You’re not even ripped. You just say reasonably fit - so I assume something barely above skinny fat. Your face (genetics) are doing you favors here a lot.
It also depends a lot on where you are and where you’re pulling women from. Personally - there’s not a single woman I know who would date a man who is 5’3”. Heck - most don’t even want to date a man under 5’10” and will only do such when someone in person sweeps them off their feet. (Relying on repeated forced interaction - they’ll never go on a date with them from OLD)
I would much rather be a physically unattractive guy than a physically unattractive woman. Women consider so many different traits that it's easier for guys to work on becoming attractive for women.
I'm 5'3" and haven't needed to take 'drastic measures' to find women interested in me, both in real life and online. I would say that the majority of women 5'4" or under don't consider my height a dealbreaker, even if it's a disadvantage (which it definitely is). Yes, taller women are another story, but the average height of a woman in the US is 5'4".
So why does my experience differ with the conclusion you've drawn? My guess: I have a pretty good looking face, a reasonably fit body, and I'm a musician. In other words, height excluded, I'm above-average in attractiveness. And that's evidently enough to take away the whole dealbreaker thing, if it existed in the first place.
I know it's an n=1, but your statement is so profoundly certain that an n=1 is enough weaken it.