Quote Originally Posted by Chef View Post
Actually I think you are reading into what I was saying. I certainly agree on your definition of a kilt, I personally however do not believe that all unbifurcated garments designed for men and worn by men are kilts. That however is not the same as calling someone a cross-dresser, whom I would define as a man dressing up as a woman. While I don't think some of the new garments being called kilts are, I don't think that means the wearer is a cross-dresser. So again it may not be my idea of a kilt, but I will defend their right to wear it. I also defend the right of someone to be a cross-dresser, I think it's odd, but they have the right.
Fair enough. Forums are an inexact means of communication. I still think my answer explains why men who personally consider the garment they are wearing to be a kilt, albeit perhaps a modern variant, are adamant that it not be categorized as something else. A kilt is a garment recognized in Western society as a man's garment. Most other unbifurcated garments are not.

Best regards,

Jake