Is this appeals to tradition "It’s discriminatory to mandate that police officers must confirm to a certain height and weight".

I think this question "It’s discriminatory to mandate that police officers must confirm to a certain height and weight". I think this maybe Appeal to Tradition. Looking for a little help.

No, I think what we have is unwarranted assumption. It may also be begging the question because "discrimination" is not defined and is being used in a pejorative manner. Quite simply, the requirement itself has a reasonable explanation, e.g. police officers who are within certain physical parameters will perform better than ones who are overweight. Also, the comment fails to specify why the particular practice is implied to be wrong, e.g. it lacks specificity. Any practice that excludes certain people is in-and-of itself discriminatory but that does not necessarily make it wrong.

It is only appeal to tradition if the statement mentioned something such as "It has been a long held tradition that officers..." The question would be, why is this important now? All similar statements reflect rules set in the past, but there has to be some indication that the reason for the rule is tradition.

The statement isn't actually stated correctly so it actually is a straw man too. The correct and more concise meaning in regards to being a police officer is more in regards to height/weight proportional. And physically fit has to be demonstrated prior to being considered for employment on the police force anyway. So how much you weigh, or how tall you are, isn't a requirement within any police force I've seen. Though technically little people don't always conform to the requirements in regards to height, but physical fitness could be a type of disqualification, but not in regards to height. This is based in my experience not based on knowledge of different communities rules, so I could merely be assuming.