In light of another topic discussion, I decided to start this read for us to list the name description found on nameberry that are viewed as offensive, and inappropriate or as any other negative.
So far the list are as follows:
[Names with Bothersome Descriptions]
[name]Antoine[/name] - “Your friendly neighborhood hairdresser.”
[name]Antoinette[/name] -" as out of style as other early French forms, such as Babette and Nanette."
[name]Ashley[/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]Cedric[/name] - “The name was then sissified as Little Lord Fauntleroy, the long-haired, velvet-suited and lace-collared boy hero of the Frances Hodgson Burnett book, who became an unwitting symbol of the pampered mama’s boy.”
[name]Cyril[/name] - “Snooty sounding for a boy, it’s both soft and virile for a girl.”
[name]Dorian[/name] - “crossed the lake into the girls’ camp several years ago” (It’s worth noting that popular stats pretty thoroughly refute this claim; Dorian has never been ranked for girls, while it’s been bouncing around the 400-500-600 range since the early '70s for boys. In 2011 there were 488 male to 21 female Dorians, and the gap wasn’t any smaller “several years ago,” either.)
[name]Darcy[/name] - “The ultimate Jane Austen hero name, but a bit feminine for an American boy.”
[name]Elke[/name] - “Creates a seemingly contradictory image: a German sex kitten”
(I don’t think it creates an such image since most people aren’t even ware of Elke Sommer. Even so, does this make other names like Marilyn worthy of such commentary?)
[name]Lance[/name] - “Despite the heroic achievements of Lance Armstrong, has a rather limp-wristed soap opera image”
[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]Marilyn[/name] - “When you realize that the iconic Marilyn would now be in her eighties, this name sounds anything but young and sexy.”
(The age of someone who was an icon with the name doesn’t affect the sound. It seems to fit in sound with Marin and Ashlyn and it just as vintage as Agnes, Agatha, Harriet and others if not less.)
[name]Osbert[/name] - “soft” and “wimpy”
[name]Pomeroy[/name] - “Baroque and sissified.”
[name]Sidney[/name] -" the male version has virtually lost what little testosterone it had."
[name]Sisyphus[/name] - " and completely sissified to boot."
[Names That Should Have Things Added to Its Description]
[name]India[/name] - a blurb about the name being controversial.
[Names Whose Genders Don’t Add Up]
[name]Arthur[/name] - Doesn’t seem to deserve being added to the Girls section
[name]Cyril[/name] - Doesn’t seem to deserve being added to the Girls section
[name]Feel[/name] free to add in or point out whatever else you notice. Hopefully these descriptors will be changed.
It really bothers me that so many traditionally male names have boy AND girl entries. The same is not true of a single traditionally female name I can find. Examples: [name]Dorian[/name] (brought up on another thread), [name]Arthur[/name] (seriously?!), [name]Roscoe[/name] (“even edgier, more hipster” for girls than boys, apparently), [name]Everett[/name] (“a prime crossover candidate” – if I see a girl with this name I will cry), [name]Elliot[/name], [name]James[/name] ("[name]James[/name] for a girl? Well, why not?" SO MANY REASONS), [name]Emmet[/name]…I could go on. Stop the madness! Or, alternatively, list [name]Emma[/name], [name]Ella[/name], [name]Jemima[/name], [name]Verity[/name], [name]Dora[/name], [name]Aria[/name], [name]Rachel[/name], etc, as unisex as well. Why NOT use these names on a boy, if [name]James[/name] is acceptable for a girl?
Agreed.
I was going through that “Geezer Names For Girls” list, and most of that list is just completely unrealistic and unfair, in my opinion.
[name]Stanley[/name] on a girl? Why? [name]Seth[/name], [name]Gary[/name], [name]Howard[/name]? Really?
[name]Gary[/name] means “spearman”, I don’t see why that even seems like it should be used on a girl.
I have an issue with [name]Arthur[/name] being listed as a girl’s name on this website.
The description for [name]Arthur[/name] (girl) is this: “[name]One[/name] of the old-school masculine names some very adventurous parents are adopting for girls.”
I thought that was an interesting claim. I just checked the SSA lists from 2001-2011, and not surprisingly [name]Arthur[/name] never shows up on the girls’ list. If there were any unfortunate girls named [name]Arthur[/name] in that ten-year span, there are less than 40. Definitely not enough to warrant [name]Arthur[/name] being listed as a girl’s name.
ETA: I’m going back further in the data, and [name]Arthur[/name] occasionally shows up at the very, very bottom of the very girls’ list. Never more than 20 uses a year though. Still not enough to warrant [name]Arthur[/name] being used as a girl’s name.
The “Geezer Names for Girls” list bothers me to end. Why isn’t there an accompanying “Geezelle Names for Boys” list advocating [name]Dorcas[/name], [name]Mildred[/name], and [name]Gretchen[/name] for a boy?
I personally think that the description for Taylor for a guy is alright, however, Taylor Lautner’s name deserves to be spelled correctly: “Twilight’s Taylor Leitner, though, is keeping it viable for the boys”.
Also, the description for Indiana for a guy is interesting, saying that it emerged in the 80s, when it has never been in the top 1000 for guys. I’m sure there’s the few 80s babies here and there named Indiana, but I don’t think that’s enough to say it ‘emerged’.
[name]Antoinette[/name] and [name]Marie[/name] (no royalty reference intended). Apparently they are both dated and not due for a comeback. I also really like [name]Sidney[/name] on a guy nn [name]Sid[/name] but do you really think it’s totally feminized now?
I understand [name]Taylor[/name] currently ranks higher for boys than for girls, but am I the only person who knows more male Taylors than female Taylors? [name]Taylor[/name] is a pretty common name amongst the guys at my school, whereas we only have two or three female Taylors.
I really don’t think it’s fair to say that Taylor Lautner is the only thing keeping Taylor viable for a boy.
Wow “sissified”…do NOT like that descriptor at all!! I will have to think and try to remember descriptions that made me wince but I was surprised to see that word used.
[name]Glad[/name] to see this thread! In addition to offensive, inappropriate, or negative descriptions, there are also some that contain inaccuracies.
[name]Osbert[/name]: “soft” and “wimpy”
[name]Dorian[/name]: “crossed the lake into the girls’ camp several years ago” - I think it’s worth noting that popular stats pretty thoroughly refute this claim; [name]Dorian[/name] has never been ranked for girls, while it’s been bouncing around the 400-500-600 range since the early '70s for boys. In 2011 there were 488 male to 21 female Dorians, and the gap wasn’t any smaller “several years ago,” either.
I’m sure I’ll come across more soon enough, but that’s all I really have off the top of my head.
[name]Keith[/name] and [name]Cyril[/name] (particularly [name]Cyril[/name]: “snooty sounding for a boy, it’s both soft and virile for a girl”) have some, er, interesting entries as well. And let’s not forget [name]Ira[/name]!
I know equal numbers of male and female Taylors, and all the Sidneys I know are old men. Completely agree that [name]India[/name]'s description should include the note that it is controversial!
Did you mean to say that it ranks higher for girls than guys?
Anyhoo, that might just be where you live as well as the age group. At my school, there are female Taylors everywhere (including me haha). Last year, on the swim team alone, there was about 6 female Taylors. As far as I know, there’s only a few male Taylors here and there. It’s interesting how there is such a difference in different locations, despite the name rankings.
I like the description for [name]Madison[/name] on a boy: “When a name has been in the girls’ Top 10 for a decade, would you really want to inflict it on a son?”
…said they who listed [name]James[/name], [name]George[/name], and [name]Arthur[/name] as girls’ names.
I agree with everyone about the boys’ names as girls’ names. My favorite name is [name]Winslow[/name] that received this treatment. I think it’s an older man that could come back for little boys. It’s not in the top 1000 for either gender. (It’s a family name: that I could see myself using. Name nerd: not pregrant but still thinking.)
I also really dislike the list Names All Your Friends [name]Will[/name] Think Are Cool. While I l like many of the boys’ names on that list. I am not sure I would say oh how cool! I also dislike most of the girls names on that list. Yes [name]Maisie[/name] fits the trend of nicknames and cutesy names as names. I don’t like it. If I met someone with a baby named [name]Maisie[/name], I would be thinking “You do know she’s going to grow up, right?”
[name]Deirdre[/name] is dated too, apparently. It’s probably the most familiar Irish name here, but in no way is it dated [name]IMO[/name]. It hasn’t really had its turn in the spotlight.
“Unisex name” hypocrisy in a nutshell. A name with feminine associations is INFLICTED on a boy, as though girliness is some kind of awful punishment, and yet a male name on a female is completely positive? The internalized misogyny is heartbreaking.
