As for Utilikilts: as I have stated, I wear them in Scotland when others might wear jeans. I also cannot see any obvious connection between the Utilikilt and the traditional kilt and, after all the years I have been wearing them, I still see the Utilikilt as a man's s---t rather than a kilt - but I have absolutely no problems with that and feel somewhat sorry for those who do.
It's hard enough to get guys into something as obviously masculine (to us) as a kilt. Call it a skirt (still considered a feminine garment) and most men will stay away in droves.

The word, "kilt" puts a certain image into most people's minds (among those who know what a kilt is). That image is a strong, masculine one. It's an image of men fighting oppression, defeating the Nazis, nobility, bravery, history, and culture.

The word, "skirt" puts an entirely different image into most people's minds, especially when you put a skirt on a man. It's an image that goes with lipstick, campy wigs, nylon stockings, high heels, and fingernail polish.

Steven Villegas made a strategic marketing decision to call the UKs kilts. I think it was a smart decision. I also think that, in terms of construction and overall design, Utilikits have more in common with kilts than they do with skirts made for women which tend to sacrifice ruggedness and functionality for looks.

I'm of the opinion that when kilts are more generally accepted, other types of unbifurcated garments for men will most likely be accepted as well - even feminine skirts. If kilts don't catch on with men, it's not likely that any other unbifurcated garment will catch on either.

That's why I call them "kilts" and cringe when others say, it's just a skirt. It's bad marketing, at the very least. And marketing isn't about reality. Marketing is about perceptions -- the images in people's heads.