Can I suggest that a lot of the problems regarding 'discrimination' mentioned above lie in he fact that what is often being called a kilt, is really something rather different in respect of use, material and style.

My experience is of the traditional kilt and the variant hillwalker-over shock horror sixty odd years. A very practical outdoor gament for the British climate throughout the year, for all weathers and certainly on the hills.

On the hill a kilt no longer than the top of the knee cap is best, for it does not drag on the legs as one walks, and does not collect so much water from heather/bracken and the like. Even today for stalking and such like, it is not unusual to have a kilt shorter than that-for such practical reasons.

Also when soaked with rain the shorter kilt tends to flick the moisture away as one walks-rather than being a soggy lump of cloth on the knees: which again impedes the stride.

This in turn suggests that the soldiers of an earlier generation had it right, when wearing the kilt as a practical outdoor garment.

However if looking to historical records/pictures, almost any length down to the bottom of the knee cap can be found-and there was even a picture in a recent issue of the Scots Magazine showing a silk kilt.

A problem we all have today is that thanks to the Victorian desire for rules-what was in fact a continually evolving garment: was beset by this or that set in stone dictate-dictates which still bedevil us today.

Of course that can be amusing when one reads the diktat of this or that pundit stating this or that rule, which is not of necessity backed up by historical fact.
James