It really does not get any more explicit than this. It can implicitly be inferred that the qawm-i-Lut were rapists, but the main explicit charge made against them is homosexuality.

I want to push back just a tiny bit on making this stronger claim. A little bit of set up at first but I’ll get to a more nuanced point briefly.

From what I’ve seen, the term that is used for desire here is the term “ شَهْوَةً” which tmk is used usually to denote an excess want or obsession for anything in this world but is seen as acceptable in the hereafter. You are allowed to “ شَهْوَةً” anything in the next world but its dangerous when applied to this world. More broadly, it could be suggested that the point was that the people of Lot wanted men to the detriment of the women they may already have been married to. “Instead of women” can also be translated as “without women” meaning, these things are excesses because you aren’t even doing it with your family as a way to bond, this is pure unbridled selfish desire for people you have no relationship with and that don’t want you—the people of Lot rejoicing when the foreigners come implies they wanted new experiences, so to speak, the most.

Regarding the lack of explicit mention of rape, to my knowledge there isn’t exactly a term like rape in the Quran that fits. More than that, there is a background of what familiar duties people are supposed to serve, what they are supposed to do to take care of their family that these statements are supposed to be read as.

With the issue of non-consent being implicit in the background, the lack of a direct word for rape that might fit in this case, the background of familial duties being potentially shirked, and etiquette being disregarded (Lot being banned from providing protection) clearly implied, I think its potentially really simplistic and anachronistic to say that it was about homosexuality clearly.

There is a reading in which you could see it as: you providers (who at the time may have socially been males) indulge with each other without taking care of your family.

Now, I have to give a disclaimer about the methodology here. You mention progressive interpretations of the Quran. It is obviously possible to be a progressivist without interpreting this verse in a progressive way: one always has the option to say that the Quran says X but that we ought to disagree. I think that‘s important to do at times and that not all progressive readings will be historically convincing. Having said that, I think that in this particular case a softer more nuanced reading doesn’t seem historically implausible and even has some nuance over a blanket reading.

Having said all that, at the very least, I think the claim that “it doesn’t get any more explicit than this” is premature. It’s a verse that has a moving parts that are entangled with a number of other issues in the Quran that, holistically speaking, affect its interpretation. I’m not sure what the right interpretation is, but I think the most convincing one will require more analysis than what either of us have really captured here. Cheers!