Please explain...

[Makeitstop]

You didn't restate it; you changed it to what suited you by misusing the word resemble. You make the assumption that a Utilikilt resembles a Scottish kilt. I and many others would argue that it does not and was never intended to. The fact that it has similarities is based on function rather than intention. It no more resembles a Scottish kilt than a Ford Expidition SUV resembles a Ford Fusion. Yes they are both motor vehicles and by definition they share many similarities but one does not really resemble the other and no one would mistake one for the other.

The definition of the word resemble:

be like somebody or something: to be similar to somebody or something in appearance or behavior

So it is incorrect to make the jump from

"2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt"

to

"A pleated knee-length manskirt"

because a pleated knee-length manskirt would not necessarily resemble a Scottish kilt. As is the case with a Utilikilt or a fustanellla.

I never said anything about Utilikilts. Technically I never said they resemble a Scottish kilt, but I will now: Utilikilts resemble a Scottish kilt. And I never said they were intended to, nor will I.

A Utilikilt is similar to a Scottish kilt in appearance. It does not matter if it was intended to be or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are similar. And they do not have to be identical, just similar. Honestly, if you can't tell just by looking, I don't expect anything I say to make a difference.

And I stand by my reasoning. If a Kilt only has to resemble a Scottish kilt, then it does not actually have to be Scottish. Take all the Scottish out of definition 1 (which is obviously a Scottish kilt) and you are left with the 4 traits mentioned above, and the words "usually of tartan" which is not an absolute rule and therefore cannot be treated as a requirement. Thus, we have, the pleated knee-length manskirt.

Is it a perfect definition? Of course not. There are no perfect definitions. A perfect definition of a kilt would have to include without exception every single thing which could ever possibly be considered to be a kilt, and exclude without exception every single thing which could ever possibly be considered to not be a kilt. It would have to take into account every conceivable detail and potential variation no matter how big or small. It could leave absolutely no ambiguity in any case or any room for individual judgment. Even if it were feasible to write such a definition, there is no way in hell that we could ever get any kind of consensus on it.

As such, I am entirely content to go with the bare minimum requirement that it be a pleated knee-length manskirt, and leave all else to reason and common sense.

And ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Nothing about the garment itself changes if you call it a kilt, a mug, a skirt or a crotch curtain. It's just a label we use for communication purposes. A kilt by any other name...