Unisex names -- where do you draw the line?

How far is too far in your opinion when it comes to unisex or gender-bending names?

Personally, I think that surnames are pretty much fair game for either sex. Admittedly, there are some I prefer for girls and some for boys (Hunter, Carter, Porter, Willis I see as more masculine; Tierney, Delaney, Hennesy, Greer I see as more feminine) but that's just personal preference.

The reason I think of them as 'fair game' is that use of surnames as first names has been used for hundreds of years (since the Reformation), and not just solely for boys. In 1609, for example, Lord Paget called his daughter Essex because his father-in-law was Earl of Essex. The practice was confined to the upper classes until the 19th century when it filtered down to the masses.

I myself have a great x 4 grandmother, born in 1814 in a small village in Norfolk (England), called Willoughby. I assume that this was the surname of a local celebrity as quite a few boys and girls at that time in the area were given the name. Looking through the records, one family even called their daughter Willoughby, and when she died in infancy, gave the name to their son. And another family who had both a son and daughter called Clopton (a family surname). So the gender-bending clearly didn't bother them much.

Other ones from the area:

girls:

Attwood
Bennett
Easget
Emming
Myhill
Palgrave
Parnell
Piercy
Reve
Shelton
Stafford


boys:

Barlee
Bennet
Buckworth
Chaplin
Dyckes
Firmin
Gardiner
Gaybon
Livewell
Jenkinson
Hammond
Moore
Reeve
Reve
Seaman
Sharp
Smithly
Spooner
Wright
Wells

However, I admit that it's like nails on a blackboard for me when I hear masculine names (i.e. names that started life as a masculine first name regardless of their later use as surnames) being used for girls. Examples being Evan, Dylan, Finley, Bryn, Ryan (notice it's mostly the Celtic boys that get it in the neck?) Reese/Rhys, Luca, Cameron, Shane. There are so many wonderful girls names out there, imo, why choose a boys name.

Also, despite my feelings for surnames being up for grabs for either gender, meaning is important to me, so any surname that means 'son of' given to a girl is a little odd to me. This includes Mac/Mc names and the 'ab' Welsh names (Bevan, Brice) but mostly the ones ending in -son as the meaning is much more inherent.

So, how about you? Where do you draw the line?

I like some unisex names, but they aggravate me all the same. It's pretty much obvious that there are already more girls' names than boys' names, and yet the girls' parents continue to destroy perfectly good boys' names.
All I really have to say on this matter is: If the girls take James, I don't know what I'll do.

If a name sounds feminine (Lindsey, Leslie, Delaney), then I think it can be used for a girl. But I don't think names like Ryan, Logan and Dylan sound very feminine. There are so many beautiful female names, and many boys would be embarrassed to have a name that is also given to a lot of girls, so I think some names should be left for males.

Do you think names like Sonny and Daylee are Feminine? just wondering because they are in my list of names and im not sure?

lc wrote:Do you think names like Sonny and Daylee are Feminine? just wondering because they are in my list of names and im not sure?

I know quite a few boys called Sonny and with the Son part it sounds masculine to me. I like a lot of male names that end in 'ly' (Finlay, Bradley, Ashley -- this is boy in UK --, Wesley) but Daylee could be construed as feminine to some as 'ley/lee' is a common/trendy ending for girls names.

I can't stand when someone names a girl Tyler, and Noah. Those aren't girls names to me! How about Taylor for the girl, and Noelle for the girl!

I like Riley for a girl, not a boy.

elea wrote:I myself have a great x 4 grandmother, born in 1814 in a small village in Norfolk (England), called Willoughby. I assume that this was the surname of a local celebrity as quite a few boys and girls at that time in the area were given the name. Looking through the records, one family even called their daughter Willoughby, and when she died in infancy, gave the name to their son. And another family who had both a son and daughter called Clopton (a family surname). So the gender-bending clearly didn't bother them much.

Could Willoughby be from Jane Austen's Sense & Sensibility? It was published in 1811, although I have no idea how quickly it caught on. Could be one person read it, named her son after the rogue, and then the name caught on in the neighborhood.

I feel that once a name has gone unisex, it no longer belongs to the boys, it belongs to the girls. It's a sad thing too since there are so many names for girls already and stealing them from boys makes the boy pool increasingly smaller.

This is coming from the mother of one boy and one on the way. It's so hard coming up with a name you love and then finding out it is largely used for girls too. I want clearly masculine names for my boys and the pickings are getting slim.

I met a mom at a park pushing her little girl on the swing next to my son. When she told me her daughter's name was Kendall, I immediately thought, "Oh, you're that kind." It just drives me nuts when women take men's names and put them on their daughters. Do you see men taking women's names and putting them on their sons?

mamapajama wrote:I feel that once a name has gone unisex, it no longer belongs to the boys, it belongs to the girls. It's a sad thing too since there are so many names for girls already and stealing them from boys makes the boy pool increasingly smaller.

This is coming from the mother of one boy and one on the way. It's so hard coming up with a name you love and then finding out it is largely used for girls too. I want clearly masculine names for my boys and the pickings are getting slim.

I'm not trying to say bad things about you or argue your opinions, but it's people like you that shy away from a name just because it's also being used for girls that contributes to the plight of boy's names going to the girls (it's not just the parents who use those names on girls that are to blame). The way to help keep these kinds of names (at least somewhat) masculine is to continue using them for boys. By the way, this statement is coming from a guy with a unisex name himself.

I don't really have a line. I don't like most of the names often suggested for boys around here, in fact, they are supposed to sound handsome and a lot of them are surnames, I don't deliberately dislike them, I just think they sound weird like some hero in a book or some character, not a real kid. However, I don't also like a lot of the girly girl names. I like straightforward kind of names. I think the trend to use boy names for girls or SURNAMES actually, why are they only for boys? Girls not good enough?

I mean, that's how I really feel about it. I find a lot of feminized boy names for girls are being used, why not an actual name that ends in -ley. The first Bailey I ever heard of was a female character on TV. Doesn't make it a girls name, but there are names like Allison, pretty sure that was a boy's name. That's now a girls name. It's no longer very popular, but it sets a tone, people like the sound of it and the trend evolves to include a name like Madison (also the first Madison most people knew was also a woman) and Emerson. It is sort of like, nobody was using them anyway. Now you want to call them back to the boys side.

Kendall doesn't sound like a boy's name. Sorry. For a name for a boy to sound masculine it has to sound like it's not a girl. Cameron is both ways. I don't think it has gone to the girls, but then there are names like Patrick and Patricia or Christopher and Christina, with the same nickname, I grew up with boys and girls named Chris all around me, and it never seemed to bother anyone that the boys had a girl's name or vice versa. The problem being some male names are successful as girls names, like Ashley or Kimberly or Marion because they just sound like they should be girls names, and those are the ones that cross for good. After some time, they might even sound too feminine and lacy and flower for a girl. I like girls to grow up to be women and taken seriously, not to be weighed down in gender-assignment so much. I still like girls names for girls but less princess ballerina kind, really straightforward and serious kind of names, you don't have to think of a nickname for.

Boys names, it's harder. It's harder because in our society, it's ok for women to be like men, but not for men to be like women and have any attributes about them pointing to sissification of their being, like females have no positive attributes any boy or man would want to have - that's what you're saying. Women can have strength, courage, confidence and capability, and have equal positions to a man, so some parents prefer a boy's name, but some of these comments sound like "it's only ok for boys to have this name."

The trouble actually is, it's society and culture that makes it not ok for a boy to have a girls name, or have anything about them that is soft and girly. You want a softer less common, or surname name for your son than the John or Max or Matthew or Zachary, but you don't want people thinking that means you think he's a girl. That's the problem. It's really that you need to protect manliness from women, that's kind of tough cookies in my book.

--------------------------
Specific Example:
I tried to write something last night (even less coherent than this, lol) that it seemed odd to me that I know there's a character on tv named Pacey and find out that it's a guy. Tracy and Stacy are kind of girl names now, Pacey might be short for something, but I think when you are grown, I don't know how old Pacey is, but boys I knew growing up weren't Ricky or Frankie or Eddie forever. Call him his name or Rick, Frank, Ed. Pacey sounds like a girl's name to me, not a very good one. I feel quite awful to admit this, it sounds like a small pet, like a parakeet or gerbil might have that name, not fit for a human. This character on tv must be something else for people to think that name sounds especially good on anyone. I say this because I love names, but I can't love every name. I hear the sound of this name, and I repeat, I feel awful and mean, but it doesn't sound like a plausible name for a capable human being of either sex. I've gone over it in my mind as if this Pacey was a girl, which I thought it was. I imagined her resenting her mother for giving her such an incomprehensibly silly name. If it sounded like anyone capable, I might have assumed it was a boy, which is also wrong.

What we really want is for girls not to have to have names that are silly and pet like and overly ribbons and bows, so if boys own all the names that aren't, guess what's going to happen? Boys don't own strength and ability so why do they own all the names that sound better?