Boys names on girls!

Ugh! I’m sick of seeing this followed by a little comment of hate.

[name]Rowan[/name], [name]Romy[/name], [name]Asher[/name] and [name]Noah[/name]-names like these are listed in nameberry under both girls and boys names. Understand it! They are unisex names-for girls and boys! I can see that naming your daughter [name]John[/name] [name]Michael[/name] is taking it to the extremes, and that’s because they are male names. [name]Just[/name] like naming your son [name]Annabelle[/name] [name]Jessica[/name] is going to make you his enemy. But I can fully agree with somebody naming either their son or daughter [name]Asher[/name] [name]Romy[/name]. Stop telling people that they need to stop using boys names on girls-because they aren’t necessarily doing that. Research please!-it doesn’t matter who originally had the name-just accept the fact that both boys and girls can share such beautiful names!!

I completely agree. Everyone has their own taste in names, and there is absolutely no reason to be hateful about it just because someone has a different taste than you. I, for one, love unisex names/boy names on girls (which ever you want to call them). I don’t go around hating people for not liking them, but I sure do get a lot of hate for liking them. I also don’t get why people make a big deal about using a unisex name for a boy. [name]Riley[/name], for example, works great for both genders. I also get tired of people calling it a trend that’ll pass. People have been using unisex names/boy names on girls (and the opposite) from at least 1880 (where the SSA list begins).

Thankyou for agreeing with me! :slight_smile:

I totally agree!!! I dislike people also talking about unisex names being to feminine for a boy. I also get annoyed with people talking about unisex names being either more a girls/boys name. My brother has a unisex name and has never been confused for a girl or thought he had a girls name. [name]Just[/name] because it’s not a name you would use for boy/girl doesn’t mean you should criticise someone else’s choice.

I’ve often been on the boys names for boys, girls names for girls bandwagon, but the more time I spend looking at and thinking about names, the less I’m worried about this. There are lots of instances when a “boys” name sounds fantastic on a girl. It just comes down to personal preference.

If people are truly worried about it, [name]Nancy[/name]'s [name]Baby[/name] Names (http://www.nancy.cc/) has a couple of great books on the most “masculine” and “feminine” names - they show the top names for both genders and what is usage for boys and girls is percentage wise. Very interesting read :slight_smile:

But [name]Asher[/name] and [name]Noah[/name] are boy’s names…

[name]Asha[/name] (Sanskrit name meaning [name]Hope[/name]) and [name]Noa[/name] (Hebrew name meaning Motion) are what you would need for a girl.

[name]Rowan[/name] can be considered a boy’s name or a unisex name depending on the meaning. If you take it as a nature name ([name]Rowan[/name] tree) then you consider the name as unisex (Old norse name for the tree Raun or Rogn). However, if you see it as a Gaelic name then it will be masculine with the meaning of “little red one.”

As for [name]Romy[/name] there are different ways this name can be interpretated. [name]Romy[/name] can be short form of [name]Rosemary[/name], and is often seen more as a nickname than a full name so yes it can work on girls. I’ve never really seen [name]Romy[/name] debated much though to be honest. Similar to [name]Romy[/name] is [name]Romilly[/name], which I do prefer for a girl but it it’s history and definition is masculine. It’s meaning is “man of rome” which is obviously wholly masculine.

I don’t believe anyone says that boy’s and girl’s can’t have the same names, it’s just that some girls do have boy’s name. Names don’t become unisex or girls/boys names just because of their usage, it is the history and meaning that determines that. No matter how many girls are named [name]James[/name] or [name]Elliot[/name] they will still always be boy’s names just being used on girls.

I cannot stand the trend and I can’t wait for it all to die down. I actually wish people would research names a little more and not just think “Oh that sounds nice” or “[name]How[/name] cool is it to name my daughter [name]Logan[/name]?” or “[name]How[/name] unique is it to name her [name]James[/name]?” etc. There is nothing unique or cool about giving your daughter a boy’s name.

Yes, there are some unisex names but a lot of what is being used isn’t and that won’t change with their usage. I just hope parents to be continue using those names on boys so they don’t end up like [name]Maddison[/name], [name]Addison[/name], [name]Avery[/name], [name]Aubrey[/name] in the US.

I say this a lot but one I don’t get is why it’s always the Gaelic boy’s names that end up on girl’s; [name]Rory[/name], [name]Aidan[/name], [name]Finlay[/name] etc.

If a name is actually unisex then I have no problem with it, but most of the names you seen thrown about on here aren’t unisex, just boy’s names. Names have history and meaning and that should be respected, not just used because you like the sound.

Nameberry is not the authority on names. [name]Do[/name] you get up in arms about the obvious bias toward “unisex” names on boys? Some “unisex” names are only listed as girl names, like [name]Greer[/name] and [name]Moriah[/name]. Then there are the negatives descriptions:

[name]Madison[/name]: “When a name has been in the girls’ Top 10 for a decade, would you really want to inflict it on a son?”
[name]Kendal[/name]: “This English [name]Lake[/name] District beauty spot makes a better choice for a girl.”
[name]Ashley[/name]: “When a name has been on the girls’ most-popular list for decades, it’s no longer a viable option for a boy.”
[name]Hadley[/name]: “[name]Even[/name] without that reference, it’s too far in the girls’ camp to be viable for boys.”
[name]Noel[/name]: “British, fey, and sophisticated, connoting wit and creativity, but not the most masculine of choices.”

I’ve noticed that the boy-name-on-girl camp is very one-sided. Once a name “goes to the girls” they are the main ones discouraging the usage of those names on boys. So no, they are not “sharing”.

Heartily agree with OP. It’s 2012, almost 2013. Are we still living in a world where anything is “for boys” or “for girls”? I wouldn’t hesitate to let me son wear a dress if he fancied and I plan to decorate my daughter’s nursery blue with sailboats, and I think [name]James[/name] is a fine girl’s name.

If a person doesn’t want to name THEIR son [name]Allison[/name], then by all means don’t. If someone doesn’t want to name THEIR daughter [name]Ashton[/name], then please…refrain. However it’s just not 1950 anymore where the lines of gender and tradition are set in stone, and not to be crossed lest we all be judged and the world end. For heaven’s sake don’t we all have bigger fish to fry than to insist traditions never change?

My point there is that names don’t just have a little tradition that can be broken, they originate from somewhere and their origins give them history and meaning. Not just tradition.

If parents choose [name]James[/name] or [name]Ashton[/name] that is fine, not my style but they will still be boy’s names on girls not unisex names.

I’m in agreement with this.

Sorry, but it’s still an awful trend.

Like this.

I think that most people have a problem with it because once it becomes popular on girls it is hard for people to want to use it on a boy because they feel it no longer feels “manly”.

If you look at the name [name]Kelly[/name] and it’s usage in the US from 1912 on, it was in the top 1000 for boys. This name didn’t get into the top 1000 for girls until the 1940s. Today most people consider it a girl’s name. The same could be said for the name [name]Morgan[/name] but the only difference there is that this name didn’t hit the top 1000 for girls until 1976. If you think of [name]Kelly[/name]/[name]Morgan[/name] as the example in a few years the unisex names that are in right now will most likely be thought of as being more in the girl’s camp. (I choose these names because these are names that I would consider using on a boy)

I believe people can do what they want and I’m not on one side or the other because I understand both sides of this issue.

I think in the end these “unisex” names just happen to be really popular names.

Sorry, OP. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you. If you’re so dead-set on naming a child [name]Ashton[/name] or [name]James[/name], have a son. Likewise, if someone REALLY wants to name their child [name]Mary[/name] or [name]Seraphina[/name], they should have a daughter.

Nobody’s saying there should be such a strong gender stratification going on, but you can’t get past the fact that there are 2 sexes: male and female. Chances are, your child will have to live with being one or the other their whole life. Giving them a name that transcends the boundaries of male and female is just going to come off wrong to not only others but your child as well. [name]Truly[/name] unisex names are one thing, but something blatantly masculine on a girl (or the other way around) is just asking for trouble.

I have mixed opinions I think, but I cannot stand the how ridiculously judgemental people are. I hate that about Nameberry - the judgyness. I mean, if you want to name your daughter a predominantly male name, go for it. It’s your child, your choice. It will not affect my daily life, or the planet as a whole. These are a few feelings I have -

  1. On very very generalised level, I personally find unisex names ugly for either gender and I will not ever use one.

  2. I have not met one female with a male name, nor one male with a now-more-female name who are happy with their name. Surely this is enough reason not to use one in itself?

[b]3) I agree it’s a very one-sided thing, but that’s a society wide problem - and this is my main issue. Almost everything that is OK for males in this world is also great and acceptable for females. However, what’s OK for females is very rarely great or acceptable for males. As a quick analogy, women can wear dresses/skirts AND trousers because it’s acceptable for a woman to dress like a man. But if a man decided to wear a skirt to work, that wouldn’t be acceptable, because to dress like a woman is so degrading to him he’d be mocked and humiliated all day. What’s the message? Society has a clear image that men are superior. To be in anyway like a woman is so degrading it’s funny. And the same thing can be applied to anything - including names. What is OK for girls? Girls names, but boys names are OK and a bit edgy and cool. What’s OK for boys? Boys names; a girl’s name would be ridiculously humiliating for a boy.

So, in my opinion, naming your daughter a predominantly male name, you are NOT challenging gender stereotypes or making a feminist statement, what you are in fact doing is reinforcing an awful, sexist mindset. Instead, why not name your son [name]Alice[/name]? I dare you.[/b]

I agree with the OP! But I do agree with oliviasarah on her third point. I, myself, love unisex names on both boys and girls–a good friend of mine is a male [name]Kelly[/name]! He’s a PhD and works at the VA with me. But I see oliviasarah’s point… and it’s a good one; it really is. You know, if given the opportunity, I would name a son a typically “feminine” name. Not to use him as a fight the power or feminist statement or anything, but because I would select any name I like for a child. If s/he dislikes it, they can always legally change it. Seriously. No one should be judged for any name they want to use. It’s their personal choice. Sorry to get all preachy on you guys.

My concern is more of a practical one. A girl with a boy’s name would deal with hassles, headaches, and mix-ups… being addressed as “Mr.” in phone messages and correspondence, possible surprises when people think (before meeting her) that they are encountering a male, and the awkwardness that can occur as a result. I would not want my daughter to go through life clarifying her name and gender and being questioned about her name all the time. I also think that many men would be reluctant to marry a girl with a classically male name like [name]James[/name].

Sorry if that came off very shouty - I really didn’t mean to rant. It barely even makes sense haha.