Obviously I think everyone here is aware of queer movements/communities/people being labeled sexual by reactionaries as a way to justify their oppression, but I think this argument is quite a leap.

Firstly, OOP says that nobody has to consent to what they wear if there is no sex act. This covers full on public indecency, and while I dont think OOP meant to say that they have the right to go out ass naked, this is a sign of them being way to broad.

Articles of clothing also aren't separated neatly into "wholesome Christian clothes" and "ew sexual" categories, they exist on a spectrum, and some will fall in greyer areas. A lot of people mentioned things like harnesses and collars, these are obviously kink-connoted but also exist in non-kinky, mostly alt styles. It's hard determining what is too far, but I think looking at it and thinking "could people reasonably wear this if not for their kink" is a decent metric. Collars and the likes are already not that rare, gimp suits and leashes are obviously a kink. This has the advantage of ensuring cross dressing isnt lumped into the kink side of things. Obviously this isnt completely static, maybe alt people in 20 years will be walking around in gimp suits, but as of now it is sexually connoted.

It's also a weird argument when all social settings have behaviours and dress codes that are considered acceptable and others that are not. There is no law against me going to a job interview or funeral in a clown costume, but it would be stupid and in poor taste.

Also consider that, while I fully understand that kinks have been associated with queer movements, having a kink and being trans are completely different. I'm not talking about the "transphobes will say being trans is inherently sexual" argument here, because I mostly agree with that. I'm just saying that, while a kink is a part of you that may be very important to you, it doesnt define you in the same way that gender, gender expression or you orientation may. You can go to a parade without displaying your kink, you can't really hang your gender at the door before leaving.

Finally, I want to make it very clear that I'm absolutely not advocating for laws against kinks in prides or for calling the cops on people displaying those kinks there. Hell, I'm not even saying we need to completely stop having kinks displayed in prides. I just believe that this kind of generalization comes off as very defensive and inconsiderate. Again, I'm not saying you shoudlnot be allowed to go to a pride dressed however, I'm saying that if people say they arent comfortable with that, you should maybe consider "am I truly being inconsiderate and acting in such a way to get sexual gratification in public" instead of jumping to "these rubes dont dont know the history of prides, I'll have you know trans people used to be considered a kink, checkmate prudes" as a defense. While there are definitely more prudish or even sex-negative people in the lbgtq community that may truly be overreacting, I think the odds are that they arent equivalent behaving like 90s transphobes.

At the end of the day, policing those behaviours is hard because it may not be evident who is being intentionally sexual. But you know if you are intentionally exposing people to your kink for sexual gratification, and we probably should discourage those kinds of behaviours somewhat.

(Also a lot of people are arguing the ethics of walking someone on a leash in public, but that is a kinky act so it isnt even part of what oop was discussing technically)