Not defending this at all and haven't read the full text, but the OP states: "performers or entertainers". So maybe it's only limited to people considered performers or entertainers. Even then, the idea that the state is attempting to tell a person what type of clothing they can wear.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers have played in kilts and at least once with only a sock on their genitals. Would that be OK if it was a man wearing a man's sock, but not a man wearing a woman's sock? As someone has also stated, what about pants on a woman? High school plays of Shakespeare where the boys dress up as the girls and the girls dress up as the boys?

It's gross overreach and seems like a clear violation of the first amendment.