[ptoo]

Sure, some forms of intelligence or other personal qualities could be opted for when choosing a mate. Should inconsequential physical traits such as race and height? You tell me. Or at least explain the distinction between the two as you see it.

[lotsofpulp]

I cannot agree with your premise of those physical traits being inconsequential.

For example, there is lots of construction and heavy equipment type work that require strong wrists and forearms, and if you are not born with them, then you are not going to be able to do those jobs.

Even race (or whatever classification of tribal affiliation you want) is consequential. Some people have very curly hair (for example black peoples), and it takes a lot more work to maintain. Some races have higher risk of heart disease/cholesterol problems. Some people’s skin is so lacking in melanin that they get sunburn on a cloudy day.

[ptoo]

The premise isn't exactly that people shouldn't select for traits that they desire, rather that it is irresponsible for journalism and other forms of media to make allusions to height being a positive trait.

If people want to make judgements about a person's worth based on their racist or heightist tendencies that's their prerogative, but we have seen with racism that negatively portraying people of colour only serves to propagate negative stereotype beyond that which is "innate". It is clearly equivalent for height, given the many examples people provide of height not providing societal advantages in certain other cultures. It's by and large a cultural phenomenon, not biological.

Is it really that preposterous to expect the media not to mischaracterise people born with an arbitrary genetic trait as lesser individuals?