Quite a fascinating subject, but are we being a bit too sensitive and so losing track?

Possibly to many, certainly myself a kilt is a specific garment-just as a Greek Fustanella or a Fijian's Sulu is a specific garment. A garment linked by form to a certain tribal/clan - ethnic grouping.

However the word kilt appears to have subsumed to itself certain garments that deviate considerably from the original: be it of form and or material. An example would be the Utilikilt.

At this point it gets nasty, I can see every good reason for a man wearing a Utilikilt-for whilst I do not have one, it appears a very practical and sensible garment. However should it be seen as a sensible man's skirt or a kilt?

If it is seen as a man's skirt, then it opens up the argument for other possibly cheaper materials and designs-albeit made for men and entirely distanced from any suggestion of cross dressing.

However if it is seen as a kilt, then all the arguments regarding cost, materials-the use of tartan and so on will persist.

Can I suggest that the time has come to bite the bullet, and consider accepting the fact that all too often what is termed a kilt, is in fact a masculine skirt. A form of dressing that is entirely logical, and good sense.

James