> But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Those who were short didn't fare worse in absolute terms. They only look worse off by comparison.

That's exactly analogous to SF not offering algebra (for the students without the means to take extracurricular classes, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic) - none of them get algebra, so they're all worse off in math in the future. With algebra offered, Black and Hispanic students may be less successful on average at algebra than other groups, but at least Black and Hispanic students that can handle algebra get a chance for better math education.

The gist of it is, there needs to be great opportunities offered without prejudice.

In fairness, the issues surrounding height inequality tend to be more about relative height than absolute height. So sure, shorter people can still reach the same physical heights, absolutely speaking, but they are now being judged against a broader spectrum of heights relatively speaking. Which means that they're less likely to succeed at job interviews or in relationships, and therefore end up absolutely worse off than before.

Essentially, if something is a zero-sum game (e.g. there are only so many jobs around, if you get a job someone else won't), then even if someone isn't doing worse absolutely, they can still do worse overall relatively speaking.

Which isn't to say that we should be giving short people stilts and cutting the legs off tall people, but it's worth recognising that these topics are complex, and even if we're only talking about absolute benefits, people can still lose out relatively speaking.