The article and many of the comments point up to ordinary cheerleader outfits. Though technically the law doesn't target these people as they are not impersonating the opposite sex, it does raise an interesting question: Why is immodesty acceptable with cis-gender and gender-conforming people, but not the other way around?
It raises many interesting legal double standards:
Men in Tennessee can go around bare chested but not women.
Women in Tennessee do not have to suppress large breast (provided they are covered) but men having any kind of bulge between the legs is illegal.
Compared to the puritans of the 1600s (the pinnacle of modesty and conservative dress) virtually everyone today is VERY scantily clad.
What if, I wanted to hold a strict biblical viewpoint for my family and demand that if I'm out in public, myself or my children should not have to witness women in bikinis or men wearing shorts? The bible has CLEAR rules on modesty, and Tennessee after all is a de-facto Christian theocracy, so I wonder, what gives here? Why is what's good for the goose NOT good for the gander?
Now of course, I don't have any problem with what people wear or don't wear. People can run around naked for all I care, but it's the principle of these laws that bug me. And to me, it seems to have little to nothing to do with "protecting children" or even modesty for that matter as we subject children sexual material all of the time. You can't drive ten miles in West Virginia without seeing a
"Southern Exposure" billboard on the side of the highway. Fun side note: Is the woman in the billboard in the link a cis-woman or a drag queen? Funny, since we can only see from the neck up, we may never know unless you actually visit the strip club.
No, the purpose of these laws have one purpose and one purpose only, do latch on to the neo-conservative vilification of anything remotely queer and to enforce "traditional values" where men and women alike stay in their assigned gender lane. It has nothing to do with protecting children from sexually immodest exposure, if it did then I can think of a lot more lower hanging fruit they could ban, yet the don't.