Which "single culture" is that? I disagree with censorship and morality policing as much as you seem to but opposition to porn is the norm worldwide across nearly every culture.
A 2019 Gallup poll found that 61% of American respondents believed pornography was "morally unacceptable." That's nearly twice the share that thought smoking marijuana was immoral, and higher than abortion. Somewhere around half of American women support banning it altogether, as well as a not insignificant share of men: https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/lehmanfigure2-w640...
(IFS is a biased source here, but the surveys they cite are not)
"The lawmakers have low quality education and therefore have insensible laws" doesn't logically follow because "low quality education" is not sufficient to establish that they will make insensible laws. I.e. there are lawmakers with low education who have passed decent laws.
Who are the people who support the death penalty for apostasy or "blasphemy" who are not religious fanatics? If those views don't make one a religious fanatic, what does, and who do you consider to be a religious fanatic by your definition?
There are, of course, opportunist lawmakers who support these laws simply to gain political points. That does not, however, explain why overwhelming majorities of the Pakistani population support the same fanatical policies when polled by the most reputable pollsters on earth. Furthermore, the fact that it is politically expedient to support the execution of apostates and "blasphemers" supports his argument that its voters are largely religious fanatics.
You are "not furthering the discussion" because you refuse to provide actual arguments and instead resorted to calling him a racist without any evidence.
Just last month, Pakistan's national assembly unanimously voted to expand its country's blasphemy laws, which have previously been used to charge more than 1500 Pakistanis. That doesn't include the more than 70 people who have been murdered by mobs and vigilantes over allegations of "insulting Islam."
Those laws impose the death penalty for "insulting the Prophet Muhammad" and 10 years to life in prison for insulting his "companions." According to Pew Research, 76% of Pakistani Muslims support the death penalty for simply leaving Islam, never-mind "insulting" the religion (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-m...). Apparently a 10th century drawing of the guy is "prophet worship" (which is also punishable by death), but putting people to death for insulting him isn't.
If you think those surveys are wrong, the unanimous legislative support for these measures would suggest Pakistan really is ruled by a military junta that doesn't represent its people. If you acknowledge the polls are even somewhat accurate, I'm curious how you think demanding the death penalty for leaving a religion doesn't make you a fanatic. According to Gallup Pakistan, a majority of Pakistanis said they wanted the "type of Islamic government in Pakistan that the Taliban have brought in Afghanistan" (https://gallup.com.pk/post/32284).
I am genuinely curious what you do believe constitutes a religious fanatic if demanding the death of people who leave their religion and openly supporting Taliban-style government doesn't fit the bill.
There are absolutely (non-Muslim) religious fanatics in India and other places who do terrible things. Conversely, there are many Pakistanis who are not religious fanatics and oppose these fanatical measures. That doesn't change the truth of his point: that Pakistan is plagued by religious fanatics and a militaristic government. All countries have their religious fanatics, but there is a very real difference between, say, 50 crackpots from the Westboro Baptist Church carrying offensive signs and 76% of the country supporting the execution of people that leave their religion.
At least in most Western countries, we have explicitly outlawed the same medicines (Anabolic/Androgenic Steroids) for non-trans people without a physical medical need. In other words, a man who feels dysphoric about his body not being masculine enough cannot access the same drugs that a (biological) woman who feels dysphoric about her body not being masculine enough can.
I'd guess there are biological females who genuinely benefit from transitioning with testosterone, much like how there are many males who benefit from it due to hypogonadism/similar issues. I would have a serious problem if people started pushing testosterone on vulnerable young boys and telling them it would fix their problems, while vehemently attacking anyone who remotely questions those claims. How you think that's acceptable in girls, and compare it to informed adults getting botox for wrinkles or rogaine for hair loss is astounding.
None of the drugs you listed have significant effects lasting longer than a few months after their usage is stopped. With regard to plastic surgery, I'm not aware of any widely practiced cosmetic surgery that permanently and drastically changes one's entire endocrine system. If you're talking about cosmetic surgeries like breast implants, I don't think anyone has a problem with either trans or non-trans adults spending their money to look the way they want to. There is certainly no law to prevent it.
It's not particularly surprising that people would criticize someone focusing on a bad actor's ethnic group, whether it's Kanye West going on a Twitter tirade or a "crypto influencer" writing a deliberately provocative headline to drive clicks.
The actual article is more nuanced than its title suggests, almost acknowledging the obvious fact that a blue-collar "white boy" in Ohio has nothing close to the "social currency" that someone like Bankman-Fried did. It's still clearly provocative to suggest Bankman-Fried's Stanford educated, genuinely "privileged" upbringing as the son of well known Stanford professors is somehow reflective of hundreds of millions of people rather than his own circumstances. Doing something for clickbait doesn't somehow make it not provocative.
A 2019 Gallup poll found that 61% of American respondents believed pornography was "morally unacceptable." That's nearly twice the share that thought smoking marijuana was immoral, and higher than abortion. Somewhere around half of American women support banning it altogether, as well as a not insignificant share of men: https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/lehmanfigure2-w640...
(IFS is a biased source here, but the surveys they cite are not)