Definitely pervert, judging by the obvious guilty refusal to meet the camera's lens eye-to-eye. And while this person is obviously hiding behind something, it's not a sense of fashion.
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
I don't think a Leica or dress code defines the pervert photog. What defines them is their portfolio. Even then, just because a photog has lots of kids pix, it is not a slam dunk pervert case. Sometimes women like to photo kids. They are not perverts, they just like kids.
It all stems from the likes of what we enjoy shooting. Helen Levitt had lots of kids. She just liked them and that was what was around her to shoot. I talked with one photog that found street boring. He liked landscapes. Another people hater like macro insects. OK, we are free to shoot what we like. That is the beauty of photography. (Unless your a paid photog, then you shoot as your boss paid.)