Out of four examples, you chose three that do actually have a substantial average negative individual fitness cost, and there's little evidence that it's made up for by kin selection effects.

I think you have the wrong flavor of the naturalistic fallacy here. The fallacy is because our behaviors tend to promote fitness that if one doesn't promote fitness then it is wrong. (I.e. what is tells us what ought to be.) But that would only be true if fitness was the supreme moral good all on its own, not simply a bar that we have to pass for continued existence as a species. While this might rise to the level of a supreme moral good in aggregate across our species (it is hard to justify a moral good that would advocate for our extinction, especially since we're the only ones that we know of who posses that moral good), it certainly isn't obvious on an individual level. Ghengis Khan left a lot of offspring, and while we might hold some degree of horrified respect for his conquests, we don't generally hold his as an aspirational model of moral behavior.

So the problem comes in at the level of "being against our reproductive best interests". Yes, many lifestyle choices are against our reproductive best interests as individuals. The naturalistic fallacy is assuming that this alone makes it not okay.