That's why it has that name. If you tell a Scotsman he's wearing a skirt, ye'll get kilt... I'll get my tartan leg coverings and leave....Seems reasonable.
Just don't tell a kilted Scotsman he's wearing a skirt...
Well it's a distinction between using the right word for something and using the wrong word for something.
On that, we agree. But a cassock is definitely a man's garment, as it is a priest's outfit, and women aren't allowed to be priests. At least in the Catholic sorry I mean Roman Catholic church. Therefore regardless of what you call it, is is not "clothes of the opposite sex".
What's worn under the kilt?
And therefore not an example of drag.So, it is another example of a dress being a traditional male garmet.
So, men wearing dresses isn't drag. Hopefully, example like that will help stop these stupid new laws if the obvious first amendment issues aren't enough.
Under that particular definition of the word, which I don't accept but grant for the sake of agreement, yes this is absolutely correct. The law is stupid.
In the context of that flawed and stupid legislation, I don't really care what you call it.
Well the traditional kilt was more like a blanket, worn by Highlanders wrapped round their body and in no particular colour or pattern. When George IV visited Scotland in the 1820s he was the first monarch to visit since the Jacobite Wars. He wanted to dress in "highland garb" so a somewhat fanciful version was developed. His loyal hangers on also wanted to dress in similar style and that is where the Sobieski Stuarts came in. They claimed to be grandsons of Bonnie Prince Charlie and claimed to have a book, the Vestiarium Scoticum, which listed all the traditional clan tartans. The design of the modern kilt was apparently developed by an English factory owner for his workers as it would be easier to wear than the great kilt or feileadh mor in Gaelic. And this time I will get my coat...
