My point stands: he / she wants to pass for the traditional image of a man who hails from that particular part of the world. That style of turban and general appearance leave no doubt that the person in question is male. Masculine or not, that turban is a signifier of belonging to the male sex.
IMHO, turban was never an integral part of masculinity. After all, more than 99% of men in world don't wear turbans . Turban has always been though a regal sign, and at the same time has divine connotations to it , with various prophets, hindu saadhs and sikh gurus wearing it . Overtime , this distinct garment earned its "sovereign-divine" status naturally and this was in perfect unison with "miri piri" concept of sikhi. No wonder turban is an iconic part of sikhi .
Now why this lady/gentleman is in turban? Is he transgender or intersexed ? both are two totally different things. The former is congenital/environmental and is basically a person's mind of one gender and body of another. The latter is a congenital defect wherein the external genitalia is obscure .
Why is he/she in turban. Does he/she think he/she better represents voice of punjab in terms of LGBTQIA that way ? i am not sure. Also if its a male born person who self-identifies as female, what stopped him from dressing as a punjabi mutiyaar ? if he's the other way, born female but identifies as male , then the dastar is obvious !
But I would still object to it ! why ? by portraying a sikh image in a "not so strong" manner , s(he) is destroying centuries of built image of sikhs as people you should not dare mess with. You might think the image is a trivial thing, but I believe its a strong deterrent to possible harmful things that someone could throw our way.
for instance, "that kid's of sardar. lets not kidnap him. sardars are fierce" . I hope you get the gist.
And this is also rooted in Sun Tzu's saying: "Appear strong when you're weak , and weak when you're strong"