Asking and caring about someone’s bodycount is weird.

I agree that it's double standards and ridiculous, however blaming "people like Andrew Tate and the flourishing misogyny culture" makes it seem like this is a recent thing, when actually this is how women have always been treated throughout history.
You say "a good few years ago it wasn't much of a thing to care so much about bodycount [sic]", but you're forgetting that the sexual revolution which only started in the 60s was very short lived anyway. Fears about AIDS in the 80s knocked a lot of it on the head, and increased immigration brought certain specific religions (in which women are given very few freedoms) to more parts of the world.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
I absolutely don't agree with it, but it definitely isn't new.

It absolutely is weird and cringey.
Part of it is definitely a shame thing. It's about forming a "virtuous" in-group and an undesirable "promiscuous" out-group. Ultimately it's a means of controlling women's sexual behaviour through humiliation.
But I also get the feeling that a lot of men who put a lot of stock by this are really sexually insecure. On some level they're thinking, "I know sex with me would be mediocre at best. So I'd better make sure I find a woman with very few points of comparison, so that she won't realise she could be doing better." I suspect they're also hoping to find a woman who will just go along with what they want sexually, out of inexperience.

It's a reasonable question to ask someone you plan on dating.
It can show your standards, self love, insecurities ect. It can show your character. I don't think you should outright shame them, but I do think you can judge and let their body count be a deciding factor.

Nope, all it shows is the insecurity of the person who asked. How does it show your standards, self love or character lmao? Those things are proven by getting to know a person not how many people they’ve shagged. I’ve never bothered to ask about it and don’t bother to tell anyone I’m interested in mine. Another example I can use is a partner of mine who did tell me without me asking had a high count but was my longest relationship and was a very secure and lovely/loyal person.

"Lmao". Act like you haven't heard girls say they slept around because they didn't love themselves. You'll hear older women say things like that all the time.
I do think there are men who ask out of insecurity but there's some men AND women who ask to get an idea of their character.

I'd rather my girl have 0 bodies under her belt tbh...I mean I'm not keen on dating murderers.

I'd rather my girl have 0 bodies under her belt tbh...I mean I'm not keen on dating murderers.

I agree that it's double standards and ridiculous, however blaming "people like Andrew Tate and the flourishing misogyny culture" makes it seem like this is a recent thing, when actually this is how women have always been treated throughout history.
You say "a good few years ago it wasn't much of a thing to care so much about bodycount [sic]", but you're forgetting that the sexual revolution which only started in the 60s was very short lived anyway. Fears about AIDS in the 80s knocked a lot of it on the head, and increased immigration brought certain specific religions (in which women are given very few freedoms) to more parts of the world.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
I absolutely don't agree with it, but it definitely isn't new.

This should perhaps be in the relationship section.
My general belief is that I would like to know a woman's 'bodycount'.
While I previously held the position that it didn't matter at all, as I've become older and more invested in finding the future wife and mother and being more ruthless in terms of not wasting time, identifying a females character is important.
While there are some men who are bothered about body count because they are sexually insecure and wish to obsess over each phallus, for me it's more of a correlating factor to behaviours that may represent red flags.
The OP raises a number of anecdotal statements in defense of unimportance but the question here is whether there's any aggregate data to support this and the answer is no.
What we do know is that there is normally not smoke without fire and so while stereotypes can be wrong (and may not apply to a lot of women), I can reasonably assume that a majority of women (i.e. 51 of 100) who have slept with 30 men, probably would have a higher incidence of disloyalty than the other 49.
Now that still allows for plenty of women who simply use sex for fun and can act differently in a relationship but for a majority it probably does imply that they don't value sex, use it for emotional validation, have poor standards of men, carry a higher risk of STD's or prior abortions, have allowed themselves to be strung along in situationships without long term commitment (indicative again of low standards and poor self esteem) and yes, may represent a higher risk of being disloyal or leverage sex.
All of those factors are things I consider fair enough when considering the long term.
So while the OP (not sure if male or female) asks men not to judge a woman for her actions, actually I disagree. Just as a woman is under no obligations to date me based on character, men today generally have poor standards which is what allows high divorce rates and the negative impacts on children. I would encourage men generally to place more emphasis on the standards of the women they date.
The interesting statistic I saw discussed was a study which concluded that women with a body count of 7 or above had a higher than average divorce risk while a virgin had divorce risk of about half the average (and less than half of the promiscuous women). Now that's not a simple matter of each penis makes her think of divorce but again, it's likely linked to behaviour and correlation.
..
I will add to the other discussions.
On the double standards, I won't say I'm not a hypocrite but I also don't think it's a terribly healthy thing for a man to sleep around either, at least in relation to their attitude towards women.
On the Tate thing, thats part of a longer running and wider reaction to societal change. The 'red pill' (I think Tate is considered 'Black Pill which is apparently more extreme) has generally been gaining traction since almost 20 years ago and is simply the natural consequence of consensus social politics breaking down in combination with trends like online dating harming a large group of men (essentially, a greater supply of men has led to a larger level of rejection from women). Basically if the liberal left wish to argue for things like 'we should DESTROY gender or social norms' then it can't suprise people that those opposed will also become increasingly militant. To quote the old adage, 'for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'.
..
I should say that I've only actually rejected a woman for body count once and she was 40+. It just gave me a 'eww' reaction that killed my desire for her.

You didn’t have to write all that just to prove my point about the prejudice at the end and trying to justify it with a long ahh paragraph lol. I also don’t see official statistics saying that divorce rates are high because of mens poor taste in women or due to sexual history lol wot u on? Divorce is a mutual situation caused by a multitude of factors. The problem is judging a persons character solely on the basis of their sexual history, no way to actually find out until you test the waters and actually get to know them as a person.