Utilikilts have never tried to pretend they were traditional kilts. They say so themselves. As such, to judge them with the same yardstick seems rather moot. It will never be a traditional kilt, but neither does it want to be.

Is it a kilt though? Yes and no. It's really not a fair question, because by answering 'yay' or 'nay' we are categorizing it using pre-existing definitions of what our concept of a kilt should be.

It is a new garment. It has been invented recently, as an unbifurcated, men's covering. It certainly isn't trousers, nor is it a ladies' skirt. I would use the word "kilt" in the descriptive sense rather than in the definitive sense... Otherwise put, I would describe it as a kilt in speaking about it, but wouldn't call it a kilt... I think I might be the only person for whom that actually makes any sort of sense whatsoever...

Let me try again... In the taxonomy of clothing, it resembles a traditional kilt more closely than it does, say, a pair of trousers... So using the terms of Carolus Linnaeus, it is likely in the same family as the traditional kilt, but most likely a different genus, and certainly an entirely different species.

Maybe something like this: (please excuse my butchering of Latin)

Kingdom: Vestiae
Phylum: Masculinis
Class: Pessum
Order: Non-bifurcatae
Family: Kiltae
Genus: Modernus
Species: neo-utilikiltus