In my view, a name is only truly unisex if it arose simultaneously for both genders. [name_u]Hilary[/name_u], which is the English form of both Hilarius and [name_f]Hilaria[/name_f], is a good example, as is [name_u]Aubrey[/name_u], which comes from both Alberada and Alberich. I tend to enjoy these names equally for men and for women.
However, these names are the minority of all the names that are considered sexually ambiguous today. The biggest category is probably names that were originally genderless surnames, but then started being given as personal names. Historically this was done far more for boys, but there are exceptions, and there is no reason why names that were originally surnames should be exclusive for one gender. Surnames are everybody’s heritage, after all, so nobody can argue that names like [name_u]Blair[/name_u] and [name_u]Percy[/name_u] aren’t unisex.
I appreciate these names on both genders, but, taking the example of [name_u]Ashley[/name_u], I would be far more likely to give it to my own son than my own daughter. It’s a question of style; on boys, surnames have an understated and gently classic vibe, which matches my taste in names far better than the modern and dynamic, or relaxed and tomboyish, feel they have for girls.
I absolutely love the diversity in feel surnames give to the name-pool for girls, though, and I would love to meet more women with these names.
(Note: not all surnames are genderless. I personally find it disrespectful to the baby’s sex to give him or her a name that means the opposite gender, which makes me believe that all “son of ____” names are inappropriate as first names for girls and names like [name_u]Dexter[/name_u], which means “female dyer”, are inappropriate for boys.)
Then, there are names that are coined from the dictionary, like [name_u]River[/name_u], [name_f]Willow[/name_f] or [name_f]Hope[/name_f]. English nouns, of course, aren’t gendered, so even though these usually have a history of use on one gender over the other, there’s nothing to say that they can’t be used for both.
Personally, I usually like them for both, but it does depend hugely on the individual name. I like [name_f]Dawn[/name_f] for both, for example, but [name_u]River[/name_u] only for boys.
The final category is that of names which were originally gendered, but somewhere down the line just started being given to children of the other sex. Some find “gender-bending” justifiable, and others don’t. I’m of the opinion that a name is more than a combination of sounds, used to address a person: its etymology makes it what it is, which means that its gender is inherent to it. [name_u]Avery[/name_u], [name_u]Dylan[/name_u] and even [name_u]Joyce[/name_u] will always be male names, no matter how many women have worn the names, and no matter how long ago.
[name_u]Evelyn[/name_u], by the way, is an interesting case of how a girls’ name became a boys’ name and then switched back again. Although it has been used for boys over the years, it’s strictly speaking no more of a boy’s name than [name_f]Rose[/name_f] is.
It started off as a Medieval variant of Avelina. It would never have appeared in Medieval records as a woman’s name, because although they were called [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] in day-to-day life, the name was latinised as Avelina on documents. But then, like many Medieval names, [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] and Avelina fell out of use, surviving only as a surname. Once the original feminine name [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] had been completely forgotten about, the surname started occasionally being given to boys, as surnames often were. There are plenty of other examples of female names having created surnames that were then given to boys when the original girls’ name became obsolete, such as [name_u]Emmet[/name_u], a diminutive for [name_f]Emma[/name_f].
With Medievalism in the nineteenth century, [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] was revived for girls.