The dimensions of kilts were changed from the high rise of the traditional kilt to the low rise of the contemporary hip-huggers yet here we still call the contemporary products such as Utilikilts kilts. But if you place the two kilts one a flat surface with waistband to waistband the utilikilt would look incredibly short. From my perspective the modern kilts seem to expose too much torso for my tastes, but that doesn't stop me from calling them kilts because of the basic construction (double apron front and pleated back).

It seems to me like the TFCK models mentioned here have simply modified the length from a different dimension. Instead of bring the waistband down, they took the hem or selvedge line down. I would definitely not call the result pleasing to the eye, or something that I would wear. I also would never consider it a traditional kilt or an American contemporary Kilt, but it still does have the basic construction of double aprons and pleated back. So to me it just seems like yet another variant (albeit a rather unsightly variant) of the kilt.

It's not something I would ever consider wearing, but because of the construction I don't think it qualifies as a skirt. If we are going to disqualify it from consideration because of its difference in length from a traditional kilt, then by the same token we should disqualify the use of kilt to describe such things as Utilikilts & NeoKilts. Since there seems to be general agreement that the modern contemporary kilts are still kilts despite their deviations from traditional standards, I would submit that we should view these ankle-length monstrosities as a curious variation that is still a kilt but hopefully a version that won't survive the test of the market.