What do you think of [name_u]Logan[/name_u] on a girl? It’s growing on me, but I have my reservations because it’s trendy for boys. But the combo [name_u]Logan[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] is so cute, I can’t resist. Please help me make up my mind! Thanks! 
Sorry [name_f]Em[/name_f], not a fan. For one, my male dog’s name is [name_u]Logan[/name_u]. I just don’t think it suits a girl well at all. An alternative you might like are [name_u]Larkin[/name_u]
Not a fan for either gender, really, but especially not for a girl.
A super snobby girl in school ruined this name for me. She was gorgeous, and knew it apparently. I prefer [name_f]Lark[/name_f], [name_u]Larkin[/name_u]* as larkub101 mentioned, [name_f]Lillian[/name_f], or [name_m]Lennox[/name_m].
No, it’s a boy’s name and I don’t even think it sounds remotely feminine.
My thoughts exactly.
Sure, go for it. It’s not unheard of on girls, even if it does currently incline more towards boys at the moment.
The only reason I’m not too fond of the name itself is that there aren’t many nicknames for it, and they aren’t all that attractive. For girls you get Lo, though. Which is pretty cute.
To tell you the truth…I find the “boys names on girls” trend very boring. My reaction is: “oh, another one. Yawn”. It’s just come to a saturation point that the whole trend turns me off. I don’t like the [name_u]Logan[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] combo. I just hear the Lo-[name_f]Ro[/name_f] beginnings.
The only [name_u]Logan[/name_u] I have ever known was a girl, so I see it as unisex.
I used to babysit a little girl named [name_u]Logan[/name_u]. I thought it was strange at first, but she was so cute and sweet that it didn’t really matter! I’m of the opinion that people define their names, not the other way around. If you like it, I say go for it! 
[name_u]Vivian[/name_u], [name_f]Beverly[/name_f], [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u], [name_u]Robin[/name_u], [name_u]Kelly[/name_u], [name_f]Audrey[/name_f], [name_u]Aubrey[/name_u], [name_u]Ashley[/name_u], [name_f]Shirley[/name_f], [name_u]Shannon[/name_u], [name_u]Leslie[/name_u], [name_u]Tracy[/name_u], [name_u]Hillary[/name_u], [name_u]Meredith[/name_u], [name_u]Blair[/name_u], [name_u]Carey[/name_u], [name_u]Courtney[/name_u], …
At some point families started giving their precious daughters these boy names, so they were “boys names on girls”.
“Boys names on girls” is not a trend. It has gone on for a very long time.
I agree with this.
I want to say no, but I can’t help feeling that’d be a bit hypocritical because I really love [name_u]Dylan[/name_u] on a girl (though I’d probably never use it).
Nope. No, no, no, no, no. Sorry, I try to be diplomatic and kind about unisex names, but this one I just don’t get at all. [name_u]True[/name_u], it’s not a short-term trend to use names on opposite genders, but it IS a fairly recent trend to use boys’ names on girls but not girls names on boys. About 100 years ago, [name_f]Anna[/name_f], [name_f]Lacey[/name_f], [name_f]Ivy[/name_f], [name_f]Katherine[/name_f], [name_f]Pearl[/name_f], and [name_f]Lillian[/name_f] all ranked on the top 1000 for boys. Now, there are no names that are strictly girls’ names that currently rank for boys. All the unisex names on the boys’ list originated on boys, or as a surname. (And [name_f]Audrey[/name_f] never was a boys’ name.)
But [name_u]Logan[/name_u] doesn’t even sound feminine to me. [name_u]Harper[/name_u], [name_u]Hadley[/name_u], [name_u]Addison[/name_u], [name_u]Morgan[/name_u], etc.? I can see it. I can even see [name_u]Avery[/name_u] and [name_u]Bailey[/name_u] and [name_u]Emerson[/name_u], much as it kills me. And I can sort of understand [name_u]Finley[/name_u] on a girl (much as it makes me want to cry). But [name_u]Logan[/name_u]? I don’t get it at all. It’s all boy. I don’t even like it on a boy, but it’s definitely all boy. The idea of it on a girl is mind-jarring for me.
If fairly recent is a few decades. Well before you were born it was a “trend”.
I never said fairly recent couldn’t be a few decades. In light of the centuries when names have swapped genders ([name_m]Christian[/name_m], [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u], [name_u]Emmett[/name_u], etc. all had origins on the genders they are less popular on now, not to mention [name_u]Noah[/name_u] (yes, with the “H”) being used on both genders in the Bible), I would say that [name_u]Ashley[/name_u] and [name_u]Jordan[/name_u] and [name_u]Taylor[/name_u] and [name_u]Dylan[/name_u] and even [name_u]Kelly[/name_u] and [name_u]Lynn[/name_u] are pretty recent. Yeah, boys are still named [name_f]Isabella[/name_f] and [name_f]Sofia[/name_f], but it’s about 7 boys named [name_f]Isabella[/name_f] and [name_f]Sofia[/name_f] etc., each, as opposed to thousands of girls that get named [name_u]Dylan[/name_u], [name_u]Logan[/name_u], [name_u]Bailey[/name_u], [name_u]Avery[/name_u], etc. every year.
So, as I said this has been going on a long while. This is not new. If those yelping about thinking boy names on girls are so awful need to do research and not name their daughters any name that was ever a boy’s name or stop yelping.
I used to think this name was all boy, but I now know of 3 little girls under the age of 5 named [name_u]Logan[/name_u]. I would never use it because I don’t like names that come even close to being unisex, but it is growing on me, probably because of the positive associations I have.
I like the suggestion of [name_u]Larkin[/name_u] though, very cute and much more feminine.
I never said it was new. I’m not sure why you’re striking out at me–there is not one potentially unisex name on my girls’ list, as evidenced in my signature, and I obviously have done my research. I don’t even think using names on the opposite gender is the problem–it’s that people don’t seem to think that people can name their son a name like [name_u]Bailey[/name_u] without ostracizing both the son and the parents. I don’t care if someone wants to name their daughter [name_u]Bailey[/name_u] or [name_u]Avery[/name_u] or [name_u]Spencer[/name_u]; just don’t give me crap if I want to name my son that, too. I realize that both sides to the argument aren’t going to change any time soon, but I think it’s ridiculous for parents to insinuate to their children that [name_u]Bailey[/name_u] won’t be enough of a man because thousands of girls share a name that was gasp a boys’ name (or at least concede that it’s a unisex name) to begin with. [name_m]Just[/name_m] because people start to like a boys’ name on a girl doesn’t mean that it’s automatically a girls’ name and a girls’ name alone.
It’s one of the most rugged-sounding, masculine names I can think of. Not a fan of gender-swapping names in general, but this one just doesn’t work at all. It’s like naming a boy [name_f]Arabella[/name_f].