How do you see this hierarchy? I’ll be frank - it seems to be the groups of people who have been most marginalised for centuries or longer, and the amount of time we’ve spent talking about them is far less than they’ve been oppressed.
Well, putting aside your refusal to spell out what you actually think, in the 20th century the major social groups agitating for rights have been women, black people and LGBT people. I would hope and expect that they all come above short and ugly people in this hierarchy.
Short and ugly people have never been legally denied property rights on the basis of their shortness and ugliness, or denied the right the vote, or forced into segregated schools, or suffered police persecution.
I’m not denying that short and ugly people are at a disadvantage but it’s obviously on a very different scale to the above and not as a result of deliberate state policy.
What exactly is your problem with them being towards the bottom of this hierarchy?
In a world where the ideal man doesn't have to conform to the traditional stereotypes or masculinity (tall and strong), short people would have far fewer reasons to worry about their height, don't you think?
And the mere fact that women don't have to conform to similar expectations should tell one that the cause of short people is very much tied to breaking up sex stereotypes and roles that we have today.
I would point out I'm not exclusively referring to men here, which it appears you've taken it as. Short and ugly women also have lesser luck in life.
I do agree that in general the loosening of the shackles of societal expectation will make space for changes, but I don't think it would actually have an appreciable effect.
