Please explain...

[Chef]

I would argue with your definition of a kilt. You've taken a description of a kilt from an encyclopedia (one that is specifically about Scotland), and then added to it by describing some common features of traditional kilts, then declared those to be the criteria which determine whether or not a garment is a kilt. So yes, this is your definition of a kilt. And it is inherently flawed (at least, for the purposes of this discussion) because you defined a kilt with a description of a traditional kilt, and then said if it doesn't meet the definition, it isn't a kilt. You're defining kilts as being traditional kilts, then saying that non-traditional kilts aren't kilts, and pointing to your definition as evidence. It's a little circular, don't you think?

So, let's just check a dictionary for a definition. From websters:

1 : a knee-length pleated skirt usually of tartan worn by men in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies
2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt

If you don't like that one, here's a whole bunch to choose from

I think this is a bit more usable as a definition. A pleated knee-length manskirt. Works for me.

Interesting you take MacMillan to task for using a source that basically agrees with the citation from Websters as well as the citations you linked to. Then make up a definition all your own which has no citation or basis in fact.

This is a perfectly good definition, as far as it goes, but some kilts, as mentioned earlier, are not made from tartan cloth, and there are skirts made from tartan cloth that are not kilts. Utilikilts on the other hand are pleated at the back, but are not made from tartan cloth. So how do we decide whether or not they're "descended from the wollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times"? The only way I can see is to enumerate the characteristics of a kilt, and see how they differ from other forms of dress. That way, we'll be able to tell if a garment has the proper characteristics to count as a kilt.

Well the way we know it didn't descend from the woollen plaid is the inventor specifically said it didn't. It descended from cargo shorts. You can check their website. For practical reasons it has some features that are similar to a kilt but that is it. Pick-up trucks and coupes have many similar features but no confuses them.

So if it didn't descend from the plaid why did the inventor call it a Utilikilt? Because it is obvious from the angry reactions, everytime someone says a Utilikilt is not a real kilt, that you wouldn't wear it if it was called a "Utiliskirt" or a "UtiliMUG".

Just a quick thought on the topic of what is and is not a kilt...

A friend of mine had a hysterectomy. Another friend of mine had ovarian cancer and had to have her ovaries removed. Are these two individuals no longer women because they lack a characteristic of what it means to be a woman?

Sorry, but to even suggest this is analogous is a bit offensive.