I also disagree that there's not structural "selection" or prejudice based on height (I wouldn't call it oppression, because because oppression is an actual real thing and not everything bad is oppression). Race and height are similar in my opinion, except that height does confer concrete advantages in some ways, while (current orthodoxy says that) race is purely appearance.
There are un-ignorable statistical anomalies in achievement based on height. CEOs are demonstrably taller than the general population, by a factor far too large to be chance. So, if short CEOs are practically non-existent, is that the fault of the short CEOs, or are there social factors that conspire against them? Should we have initiatives and laws to try to get more representation by short people into leadership positions? Unlike race, from what I see it doesn't seem like anyone cares much about the plight of short people. Not to mention that women are statistically far shorter than men, so biology itself is very sexist here. So discrimination based on height is probably just as active, and creates just as much difference in our society as discrimination based on race. Nobody seems to talk about it though, even though one's height is just as much out of their control as their race, and even though it doesn't matter to performance in the vast majority of jobs.
So instead of pointing out that sexual discrimination (which I will continue to engage in enthusiastically and without apology) based on race is worse than based on height, I would say it's just about the same thing, because when it comes to propogation of the species, people are going to discriminate based on physical factors and that's just the way it is.
