Image via Wikipedia

Feeling feisty?  Head to a message board and announce that you’re naming your daughter Addison.  Or Quinn.  Or Mason.

Then run for cover.

Sure, some people will respond positively.  But depending on the forum, you could also find yourself accused of thievery, trendiness, and general bad taste.

I’m sympathetic to parents who feel they can’t use a name they’d long loved, for fear that their son Delaney will be scarred by sharing his name with girls.  But I’m not sure a girl named Ryan is a sign of the coming apocalypse.

Make no mistake, this is a touchy subject.  And yet, I’m finding it easy to defend the practice of borrowing from the boys.

10.  We have a long history of borrowing our daughters’ names from boys.

Before there was Madison, there was Shirley.  Charlotte Bronte used it for the heroine of her 1849 novel, explaining that Shirley’s dad had wanted a son.  Shirley was gaining steadily for girls in the US when child star Shirley Temple became a household name.  The name peaked at #2 in the 1930s, and while she’s no longer popular, it is hard to imagine parents using Shirley for a son today.

There are countless stories like this, names that transitioned from male to female several generations back.  The average, non-name-obsessed person is only dimly aware of the switch.

9.  She’ll hate her name.

Yes, she probably will.  But only because lots of kids hate their names at some point.  Should you go the opposite route, it is possible that she’ll find her overly feminine name stifling.  (Nymphadora Tonks, anyone?)

You Can’t Call It “It” featured a story of a girl named Tyson who would have much rather been called Marie.  But for every Tyson, there’s a girl called Kyle who finds her boyish name pleasing.

8.  Many names have an ambi-gendered past.

Purists would like every name to correspond to pink or blue, end of discussion.  It is easy to believe that all names were created with a clear gender identity – Mary for girls, John for boys – and we’re the ones who have mucked it up.

Not so.

Take Evelyn, an off-cited early theft.  The male writer Evelyn Waugh was married to a woman named Evelyn.  Evelyn was a surname that caught on as a given name for boys.  The surname traces its roots back to the feminine appellation Aveline.  Aveline died out, but variant Evelina was revived in the nineteenth century.  All of a sudden, Evelyn sounded just right for a girl.  I’ve spotted at least one aristocratic family tree with men and woman named Evelyn over the generations.

There are more stories like that than you might imagine, from obscurities like Ismay to chart-topping choices like Madison.

7.  Stealing from boys isn’t fair.

Maybe.  But very often a name was scarcely used for either gender when it is first discovered by the parents of girls.  Lauren has some history as a short form of the masculine Laurence, but was decidedly obscure when Betty Joan Perske chose it as her professional name, becoming a major Hollywood star as Lauren Bacall.  Before Madison made a splash, she hadn’t charted for either gender since the 1950s.

The most common pattern is that a gender-ambiguous name will rise for both genders, at least for a few years – like Shannon or Avery.  In fact, Avery currently stands at #23 for girls, the highest ranking for girls ever – and at #210 for boys, also the highest ranking for boys ever.

6.  Plenty of families have long traditions of passing down surnames without regard to gender.

I’ve met families from the American South and New England, too, who pass on family surnames without regard to gender.  When a neighbor announced that their firstborn would receive her maiden name regardless of gender, the practice seemed nicely egalitarian.  If your maiden name happens to be Parker or Bailey, it would be a shame to never pass the name on just because you have daughters instead of sons.

5.  Why should certain family names be reserved for boys?

In response to #6, some insist that families should reserve the masculine choices for future sons, and look elsewhere for a daughter’s name.  Grandma Eleanor, maybe.

But there are compelling reasons to give these names to our daughters.  Kate Garry Hudson received her masculine middle because her Uncle Garry had passed away shortly before her birth.

Why not save it for a son?  Sometimes that makes sense.  But in an age of smaller families, it is not always realistic.  Imagine that you’re 42, and this is your first child – and almost certainly your last chance to use Cameron.  It would be a shame to forgo your favorite name in favor of something less meaningful.

4.  It isn’t parents using a name for girls that makes it feel feminine.

Some parents probably do look through the boys’ side of the baby name guide to find options for a daughter.  But most of the choices feel appropriate because of other names that are current.  Ava and Emily combined to make Avery a powerhouse.  Emerson follows Top Ten picks like Emma and Madison.

3.  Not every boys’ name used for girls “goes pink.”

In some cases, girls are borrowing a popular boys’ name, but it hasn’t diminished its appeal for boys.  Ryan has appeared in the US Top 1000 for girls since the 1970s, but that didn’t push Ryan out of the boys’ Top Twenty.  The same is true of Evan, Devon, and Jordan, to name just a few.

There are all cases where a name that temporarily seemed unwearable for a boy makes a quick recovery.  Jamie rose for girls and boys in the 1970s.  Today it isn’t especially stylish for either gender, but a growing number of boys named James or Jameson favor Jamie as a short form.

2.  In our enlightened age, it seems possible that some names will remain gender neutral.

Plenty of nouveau coinages seem almost deliberately gender neutral.  Peyton and Jayden are popular for girls as well as boys.  In other cases, spelling can signal the name’s gender.  I’d expect Rylee to be a girl, and chances are that’s correct -  Rylee ranked #102 in the US for girls in 2010.  But Rylee also ranked #723 for boys – and is climbing, just his feminine counterpart.

Depending on your perspective, Tate is either just one letter removed from Kate, or maybe a sound-alike to Jake.  If you’re open to names that are new, chances are that a certain amount of ambiguity will follow.  But there’s reason to believe that Tate Elizabeth and Tate Alexander can share the same playground.

1.  But there aren’t any good names left for boys!

The right name can be the right name, regardless of gender.  If your beloved grandfather was Courtney, you might name son after him regardless of concerns about being mistaken for a girl – even if you call him C.J.  And parents do seem to be daring to consider gender-shifting choices like Robin and Kelly for their sons.

It is true that parents have always exercised a greater degree of restraint when it comes to our sons’ names.  But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a great option out there for every boy.  The same freedom that lets us consider boyish choices for our daughters lets us pick from a wider range of options for our sons, too.  That’s a good thing  – even if does make you hesitate over some of your favorite boys’ names.

It’s been a quiet week as the US readies for the holiday.  

Well, not entirely quiet.  The second Twilight flick,  New Moon, premiered.  Names spotted among those turning out for the festivities included designer Rachel Roy brought her 10 year old daughter Ava.  Rachel and husband Damon Dash also have a toddler called Tallulah Ruth.  (via Celebrity Baby Blog)  It’s interesting to see parents who embraced Ava ten years ago, when she was still on the rise, using Tallulah more recently.  Anyone else think that the once-outlandish name that had everyone abuzz when the Moore-Willis clan used it will go mainstream?  And if a search for “baby names Twilight” brought you here, check out this post: Not Just for Vampires Anymore.

In other celeb news, Tiffani Thiessen tells Extra that she and her husband aren’t considering “any freaky names.”  She doesn’t mention whether going through life as Tiffani-Amber colored her view.  We’ll have to wait and see.

On to some real life name-spotting:

• I just returned from Target.  I was buying toddler tights while another mom was trying to persuade her daughter to try on a coat, but the daughter?  Was fleeing to the just-steps-away toy department.  The name the mother was calling?  ”Miracle!  Miracle, come back here!”  Insert your own joke about it-taking-an-act-of-God to distract a 3 y.o. from the toy department here;
• Bewildertrix has spotted Leonidas George.  My baby brother swears Leonidas will be the name of his firstborn son, should that happy event ever come to pass.  She also uncovered an Elisabetta Ivy.  And a Zuma.  (No Gwen Stefani isn’t in New Zealand – he’s Zuma Louis, a non-celeb baby brother for Ava and Remi.)
• For Real Baby Names spotted Dafne.  It may be a valid foreign variant, but to me it is like Jorja/Georgia - this one just looks better as the more familiar Daphne. 

Now for two Language Lessons from that sage font of wisdom, Nancy:

• Hard G vs. Soft G – Sometimes they’re interchangeable – as in Jorja/Georgia – but other times, swapping a J for a G leads to confusion;
• Doubling consonants – Ditto doubling a consonant.  It’s another popular way to make a name “unique,” but it can also cause confusion.

Truly unusual names are always found at Nameberry, and this week’s posts were no exception.  Check out the Lost Boys’ Names of 1880.  Why aren’t more boys named Zeb?  Or Hardy?  Others – including titles like Squire and Commodore – are best left to history.  (I work with a man in his 50s named General.  I don’t get the impression that he thinks much about his name one way or the other.)  For a change, the girls’ list is almost less interesting – maybe because I wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if I met a 2 y.o. called Mahala or Texas. 

Let’s end on a controversial note: the shortcomings of the Baby Name Wizard.  I recently noticed a post on Swistle (a big BNW adherent) that troubled me.  Just a few days earlier, Nancy recounted a similar story on her blog.  

An expectant mother, mom to Sophia, wrote to Swistle about the name Allegra.  She and her husband loved the name Allegra.  Loved the way nicknames Allie and Sophie sounded together.  But she worried about the allergy medication association.

Swistle wrote: “I love the name Allegra—and every time I want to suggest it, I back away because of the allergy medicine. I’m ANGRY at the company that stole it.”

Swistle’s poll was evenly split: 52% no to Allegra; 48% yes.  But here’s the thing: Swistle’s framing of the question – “Is the name Allegra too associated with allergy medication to be used for a baby?” made it pretty clear that she thought Allegra was beyond consideration.  (Swistle is usually so judgment-free that I was really surprised by that.)

The mom herself recently wrote in:

“We ended up naming our daughter Lucy. I love her name, but I regret not being gutsy enough to go with Allegra. Personally, I’d encourage anyone considering the name to go for it. No matter what name you choose some people will like it and others will hate it.”

Lucy is a fine name.  I like it lots.  But how sad that much naming advice often tends to push parents to the middle, rather than embracing the names that we really love. 

I suspect the allergy medication reference is fleeting.  When the blogger at For Real Baby Names spotted a Dexy Adelaide, I mentioned the 80s pop hit “Come On, Eileen” – and sent ForReal running to Google.  Dexy, it appears, no longer means “one-hit wonder responsible for lodging the phrase too-rye-aye in my brain.”  And it hasn’t been that long.  It makes me think Allegra will be free of medication association by the time Allie hits the teenage years, if not sooner.

Thanks for reading!

I’ve yet to read the book, but wanted to recommend the New York Times article.  If you haven’t already read it, check it out.  The duo suggests that there have always been outrageous, outlandish names and that a moniker like Candy Stohr or Mary Christmas does not hamstring a child.  The same is true for a name like Oswald or Harriet.  While we might have a negative impression of the name, the person we meet can quickly overcome our initially unfavorable impression.

There are two ways to take this, of course.

One: Go ahead.  Name your kiddo Ebenezeromeo.  He’ll do fine in life anyhow.

Two: Not so fast.  Sure, it won’t ruin your kid’s life to christen him Diesel.  But that doesn’t make it a good plan.

For now, we’re going with Two.  And running down to the bookstore to order a copy of the book.

Give your kid a normal name!

What’s more dazzling is that this criticism can be in response to nearly any choice – from a chart topper like Ava or Aiden, to standards like Henry or Beatrix.

I’d like to put forward a simple tenet of baby naming: there is no such thing as normal.

The definition of normal is regular; conforming to the common type. The best measure of this then, must be the Top 20 – or perhaps 50 – names, and thanks to the Social Security Administration, data on “normal” names is readily available.

Scan it for a few minutes, and I’m sure you’ll agree: just like hemlines have always varied, baby names have come in and out of vogue. With the exception of a very few names – mostly for boys – the Top 50 are far from a stable list.

In 1906, the following names were normal:

• For girls, Mildred (#9), Ethel (#11), Gladys (#16), Gertrude (#22), Bertha (#25), Thelma (#31) and Myrtle (#37).
• For boys, Walter (#12), Willie (#13 no, not William – just Willie!), Clarence (#18), Fred (#20), Roy (#24), Ernest (#28) and Elmer (#42).

No fair, you say? That’s too far back to find a true measure of normal?  Let’s try 1926, then. After all, plenty of octogenarians are still with us, wearing names like:

• For girls, Betty (#3), Doris (#7), Norma (#29), Phyllis (#33) and Edith (#42).
• For boys, Albert (#21), Eugene (#23), Ralph (#24), Norman (#39) and Stanley (#43).

Even in 1946 – a year some of us can remember – plenty of the favorite names are strange by today’s standards:

• For girls, Shirley (#18), Beverly (#30), Peggy (#43) and Connie (#45).
• For boys, Larry (#11), Gary (#12), Terry (#26) and Bruce (#32).

Even 1966′s list features some names that would be awkward to bestow on a child born today:

• For girls, Lori (#21), Tina (#23), Dawn (#24) and Rhonda (#39).
• For boys, Rodney (#35), Randy (#45) and Troy (#48).

By 1986, the names sound more familiar, and either more palatable or less appealing to our ears, depending on our generation. But there are still some extremely trendy entrants on the list, including:

• For girls, Ashley (#2), Brittany (#8), Amber (#13) and Crystal (#25).
• For boys, Justin (#14), Dustin (#42), Jesse (#48) and Travis (#49).

And so little wonder that by 2006, the Top 50 had changed dramatically again.

• For girls, Madison (#3), Brianna (#20), Taylor (#22), Savannah (#30), Destiny (#37) and Nevaeh (#43).
• For boys, Tyler (#18), Austin (#41) and Jayden (#50).

The bottom line is that the Top 50 – the most commonly bestowed names in the US – are quite the changeable lot.

It’s also interesting to note that the Social Security Administration lists only the Top 1000 names. This represents about 75% of the population. So even a name that ranks at a relatively obscure #1000 (In ’06, that was Jarvis) or #998 (Thaddeus) is shared by about 180 children.

Plenty of “normal” names – enduring classics like Beatrice – can be found hanging out in the upper ranks of those listings. Beatrice came in at #966 in 2006, with a mere 266 girls given that lovely name that year.

Some European nations maintain a registry of acceptable names, strictly limited to exclude such fanciful entrants as Misty (a Top 50 name for girls in the 1970s) or Dale (a Top 50 name for boys in the 1960s). Would it be possible to compile a list of 300 or 500 names and force every parent to choose from the list? Perhaps. But inevitably, the same thing would happen – even in that small sea, certain names would be more popular; others neglected.

There are popular names.  It might even be possible to agree that some are classics.

But there’s no such thing as a normal name – and that’s a good thing.

NOTE:  Post revised and links added on December 22, 2009.