Boys names on Girls

I’ve heard quite a few ‘all boy’ names on several girls, lately. What have you heard?

[name]Krystofer[/name] (my sister, goes by Krysti)
[name]Carson[/name]
[name]Elliott[/name] (don’t really like it as a fn, as it’s my aunt’s last name, but it IS a boys name)
[name]Bradleigh[/name] (that ending DOESN’T make it a girl name! It makes it a misspelled boys name put on a girl!!!)

Elliotte nn [name]Ellie[/name]. I quite like it.

Also [name]Ryan[/name], [name]Dylan[/name], [name]James[/name].

I actually don’t understand why names need to be gender specific…? Seems to be a huge deal to most people, but I don’t see the importance.

My guilty pleasures are [name]Blake[/name] and [name]Hayden[/name] on girls.
I really love [name]Emerson[/name] on a girl too.
There are plenty of gender bender names that are acceptable on both genders ([name]Skylar[/name] & [name]Sidney[/name], I [name]LOVE[/name] for both a boy or a girl)
Although, I do agree that there are many names (such as [name]Bradley[/name]) that should be kept to the boys.

All of those are absolutely egregiously awful, particularly, I’m sorry to say, your sister’s name. This is one tacky trend I absolutely CANNOT stand. Not only is it sexist, it’s just terribly downmarket and trying-too-hard. Blech.

This topic gets beaten to death on these forums…

Yep. And it’s pretty much the same discussion every time.

And I hate this trend enough to participate…every time.

Would you call an [name]Orange[/name] a Grapefruit intentionally? Would you call a Pear an [name]Apple[/name]? No, because they aren’t, they’re different.

Female and Males are different, they have different names for different reasons. I’m not going to name my daughter “[name]Little[/name] [name]King[/name]” when she’s a girl. Would you name your son [name]Regina[/name]? Which means [name]Queen[/name]? It’s the same as naming a girl [name]Ryan[/name]. But no, no one would do that.

This whole “trend” is pretty sexist seeming, and in my opinion, ridiculous.

To answer the OP: I saw a little girl named [name]Tyler[/name] today.

This exactly.

[name]How[/name] is ignoring gender stereotypes when naming a child sexist?? The definition of sexism is stereotyping based on sex, so if you ignore the stereotypes… how is that sexist?? I’m honestly really confused what you mean…

Anyways, lots of non-kings are named [name]Ryan[/name]. In fact, I don’t know of any actual kings named [name]Ryan[/name]. Or princes, for that matter. Name meanings are nice to know, but ultimately irrelevant. And I just don’t understand as a society why one needs to read a name on a piece of paper and know the sex of the person.

As for males and females being different - yes, they are. Should we establish a set of names for intersexed children? There’s far more out there than most people realize. I mean, come on - women can wear pants now, and men can wear eyeliner. Might as well share names too. Rigid sex roles are pretty lame, let’s be honest.

Sorry, I just don’t get why this is so important to people. I really, really don’t. :confused:

Thank you!! Exactly what I wanted to say…

It becomes sexist when you only do it for one gender and not the other. No one would name their son [name]Regina[/name], or [name]Caroline[/name]. Yet many are jumping to name their daughters [name]Ryan[/name], [name]Tyler[/name], [name]George[/name], and [name]James[/name].

[name]Just[/name] because a name means “[name]Little[/name] [name]King[/name]” doesn’t mean Kings have to be named it to make it so. That has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.
We need to know because it’s useful. Our sexes are nothing to be ashamed of, and acting like it’s something that doesn’t matter is more harmful than beneficial. It teaches girls that something is wrong with being a girl and that it’s better to hide it, than to be happy with what they are and to go through life as one. It teaches girls to fear what people will think about them if they are feminine, and it teaches them that feminitiy is wrong, and weak. It’s counter-productive. There’s nothing wrong with knowing a persons sex. No one tries to hide a boys gender. People try to hide girls’, and femininity. That’s wrong.

You want your girl to not be known as a girl? Then you have an issue you need to work out, but you have the right to name her as you please. Fine. Pick unisex names, and names that are actually ignore genders such as [name]Rowan[/name], and [name]River[/name]. But don’t give her a male, masculine, boys name like [name]Ryan[/name], and try to say you want her gender to be ignored when she’s living life. What you’re doing is giving her a boys name, and hoping that people will assume she’s male so that her life is “easier”. Getting your hopes up after landing and interview because the employers are looking for a male, and then to be rejected after they don’t hire you because they realise you’re a girl isn’t any easier than not landing the interview in the first place.
And who says that a boy-named daughter wants her gender to be unknown? Who’s to say that she won’t be proud to be a female, and enjoy being feminine? Who says that she wants a career in any field that predominantly male?
No one does, we make these assumptions and act as if it’s beneficial when it very well may not be. It’s not impossible to be female and be successful in any field you’re in. This is 2012 and in the Western world, we shouldn’t be teaching our daughters to doubt themselves due to femininity. We should be teaching them that BECAUSE of their femininty, they ARE capable of doing anything that they want, REGARDLESS of what others may try to tell them.

Some girls like having boys names, and that’s their flavour, but I think it’s wrong to assume that they’ll have an easier life because of it, or act like it’s trying to do something beneficial when it’s not. If one likes boys names on girls so much, then they should go and legally change their own names.

Pants are not inherently male objects, eyeliner is not inherently female. Heels were made for men, and women wear them now. I get it.
Names ARE inherently male, female, or unisex. There’s no changing that. We don’t have to share everything with males, we’re allowed to have things just for females, and things just for males. We’re not one and the same, we’re two and different.

No one’s saying anything about “rigid sex roles”, we’re talking about using names that are male for girls who are female. That’s what this is. It has nothing to do with roles.
The fact that some people think giving girls a feminine name is so…wrong, is just disturbing. It feels almost like self-hate.

It’s important to some because they think it’s harmful and sending out the wrong message. I think it’s sending out a very poor message indeed. There’s nothing wrong with being female, or feminine. It’s teaching girls that it’s better to have people think you’re a boy, and then find out you’re a girl rather than to know from the jump. Yet we never teach boys to be wary of letting other people know they’re boys…

I don’t agree with it but I understand why. On my blog I did a post about them… twice
http://babynameobsessed.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/name-of-the-week-emmerson/
http://babynameobsessed.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/boys-names-on-girls/

I agree. No offense to the op, I am just getting so sick of seeing topic after topic of people ranting about how all the boys’ names are going to the girls, or how it’s unacceptable and wrong to use a gender-bending name (male to female or vice versa).

The bottom line is, everyone has a different opinion and people are going to use the name they love regardless, so can we all just agree to disagree? At this point we’re just beating a dead horse.

The issue I have with boys names on girls, is that we have lost so many good boy names, because once a boy name starts to be used frequently on girls, it puts many parents off using it for boys. No-one, it seems, wants to give their son a name that is seen as being “girly”, even if that name was a boy name in the first place.

[name]Just[/name] look at what happened to [name]Ashley[/name].

My cousin (born in 1980) is called [name]Ashley[/name]. My cousin is male.

The year he was born, [name]Ashley[/name] was in the Top 50 for girls, and although less popular for boys, it ranked in the mid-200s (so it wasn’t unheard of for boys to be called [name]Ashley[/name] at that time).

Of course, by the time he got to high school, the name had all but fallen out of favor for boys (in fact 1994 was the year it dropped out the Top 1000) and if he had a dollar for every time he got ribbed for having a “girls name”, he jokes he’d have been able to leave high school without graduating and live off the money. The people who would rib him the most, were girls called [name]Ashley[/name].

Now luckily for my cousin, he’s a confident guy, and he would always answer back. His name has never bothered him. In his mind it’s a boys name, but just one that got “stolen” for the girls.

I’d be more in favor of “gender free” names, if it truly meant that, but at the moment it doesn’t mean that.

I am pretty neutral toward using boys names on girls. I don’t think names need to be gender specific either, but the reality is most western names are.

There are two things I don’t like:

[name]One[/name] is using blatant (highly subjective of course :)) boys names on girls, or using names with “son” or “mac” in it. I feel it’s almost like an insult to the little girl although I am sure the parents don’t mean that. I don’t mind more obscure names used by both sexes because they are so rare their genders are not well established in the mind of general public. Those names are fair game and up for grabs. They may end up more male, more female or stay unisex.

Another thing I don’t agree with is solely blaming parents of girls for “stealing” boys names. Boys names cannot be stolen unless boys parents shun away from them. As soon as some boys parents hear one girl with any name they refuse to use it, as if somehow that name is tinted and not good enough for boys anymore. See, names like [name]John[/name], [name]Michael[/name] have not gone girls even though there are many girls with those names. Why? Because boys continue to bear them. Parents of boys are just as responsible if a name has “gone girl”. And to be perfect honest, I am not sympathetic. Because the root cause is sexism.

I agree to a certain point, I like certain “boy names” on girls, like [name]Jordyn[/name], [name]Logan[/name], and [name]Ashley[/name]. But would you call a boy something like [name]Jessica[/name] or [name]Elizabeth[/name]? I may be slightly hypocritical, because I would not give a boy a name like that either, but it does bother me that girls can get boy names and boys can’t get girl names.

Not to get too far into the debate but I agree with a lot of what’s been said. I think it’s stupid to use boy names on girls but never even entertain the idea of using a girl name on a boy. That’s why I tend to steer toward names that are distinctly one or the other (though some of my boy choices I’ve seen on MANY girl lists. Won’t necessarily stop me from using them in the future though).

Anyways, to answer the OP, these are the boy names on girls I have seen and can think of at the moment:
[name]Ryann[/name]
[name]Kevyn[/name]
[name]Devin[/name]
[name]Plenty[/name] of Madisons, Addisons, Averys, Harpers, Mc-whatevers.
[name]Cory[/name] (I think she spelled it differently but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a nn).

On the flip side, I know males named [name]Courtney[/name] and [name]Erin[/name] (I never got why they didn’t name him [name]Aaron[/name]?). Also a male [name]Addison[/name], which I had never heard of before. I like it so much more on a boy! Oh, and [name]Loren[/name], but I consider that a boy name. I had only heard of [name]Laurens[/name] until I met him, so it was a little odd at first.

I like lots of historically unisex names e.g [name]Christian[/name].

As for what’s happening now, names going furiously the one way (traditional boys names and mostly patronymic surnames used as girls’ first names), it irks me.

If it was going both ways and balanced, I’d be a happy camper.

I also agree with many of the points [name]Samo[/name] raised. There’s a lot of commonsense in that post.

I heard Chandler at the pediatrician’s last week.

These are too extreme examples though to make a fair comparison. Most girls are not being named [name]John[/name], [name]Mark[/name], [name]Matthew[/name] or [name]Thomas[/name] which would be about the equivalent of naming a boy [name]Jessica[/name] or [name]Elizabeth[/name] in terms of popularity or established use. A lot of boys names on girls tend to be more surname type names (which could be gender neutral) or rarely used boys names that have become more popular for girls than they ever were for boys.