Patri, I just looked up the Gemara. It says one should not be over a “mitzvah kallah” at a time of shmad. The Gemara then says a mitzvah kallah is even changing the color of the shoelace. If you look up the Tur Shulchan Aruch that is referenced you can find the Beis Yosef that quotes the Rif that says that it refers to the goyim at the time who used to wear red shoelaces, while Jews had black shoelaces. The Beis Yosef also quotes a Maharik that explains the Rif chose the color red specifically to teach us that this is only applicable when there is a “tzad Yahadus badavar” because Jews wouldn’t wear red “mitzad tzniyus” – a practice that still commonly exists today. It would thereby imply that the Rif wouldn’t have defined a “stam minhag be’alma” that has no “tzad Yahadus badavar” to be a “mitzvah kallah,” otherwise he wouldn’t have limited the case to the color red. It’s not the color of the shoelace specifically that’s significant, it’s having to wear the color red. That would imply that there is no inyan of even a mitzvah kallah by minhagim of dress that are not inherently a transgression over tzniyus or another aspect of Yahadus. I’m not a posek, but it seems to me that the type of Yarmulka someone has or the way they wear their hair is not even a mitzvah kallah where the minhag has no basis in objective Yahadus, and is rather just “the way most frum people do things.” I would even argue that since there is no one single minhag amongst klall Yisrael as to how to wear your hair, that it wouldn’t even qualify as a “stam minhag be’alma.” According to the Beis Yosef, there may indeed be an inyan of mitzvah kalla by tight pants because it’s a matter of tzniyus.
Menu