Boy names on girls spark strong feelings.
Need proof? Tell the people of the internet you plan to name your daughter Owen or Parker or James.
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.
It is so very frustrating to feel like your favorite boy name is now unusable. Because this doesn’t go both ways nearly as often – rarely do we see boys borrow from the girls, or reclaim names from the feminine side. (Not never – Pax is one notable exception. Jamie might count, too. But exceptions are few.) That’s one reason why the pool of possible boy names feels smaller – or maybe more limited – than the choices for our daughters.
Make no mistake, this is a touchy subject. And yet, reasons abound for viewing boy names on girls as nothing to worry about.
Here’s why.
TEN: BOY NAMES ON GIRLS ARE NOTHING NEW.
Long before there was Madison, there was Shirley.
Charlotte Bronte chose the name for the heroine of an 1849 novel, explaining that Shirley’s father had hoped for a son. It was gaining steadily in use in the US when Shirley Temple became a household name. The name Shirley peaked at #2 in the 1930s, and today? It’s hard to imagine parents choosing Shirley for a son.
Or a daughter, come to that.
Countless names have followed similar paths, including Ashley and Courtney, Beverly and Joyce. Our memory is short, and while this feels like a new phenomenon, it’s a tale as old as time.
NINE: HARD BRIGHT LINES ARE IN SHORT SUPPLY.
Many of us assume that once, maybe even recently, every name neatly corresponded to male or female, with no overlap. Think about it, though, and logic dictates this can’t possibly be true.
Andrea is masculine in Italian. So is Elia. Romance languages blur the lines.
But even within English, the story quickly grows complicated. An oft-cited early theft? Evelyn. You might know that male writer Evelyn Waugh married a woman with the same first name.
Only it didn’t start out as a given name at all. Evelyn began as a surname, given to boys – but ultimately derived from Aveline, which was feminine. Aveline faded, but was revived as Evelina … and Evelina shortened to Evelyn.
That’s not name theft – it’s evolution.
EIGHT: THE IDEA OF STRICTLY BOY/GIRL NAMES ISN’T UNIVERSAL.
Some languages dictate that certain sounds belong to feminine names, while others are strictly masculine.
But that’s not universal. Hebrew, for example, offers dozens and dozens of truly unisex names.
Some might argue that English is closer to Hebrew than, say, Spanish. After all, Kate is a (almost certainly) a girl’s name, while Nate reads boy. And Tate? That depends.
If your language doesn’t insist upon clear rules, it opens the door to individual perception.
SEVEN: THE RULES WE DO HAVE? THEY LEAD US ASTRAY.
Do some parents go out of their way to research masculine names for their daughters? Probably.
But most simply hear a name and think it sounds feminine.
Take Avery. With Ava and Emily so popular, you might expect Avery to become a powerhouse – and it has. There’s no Madison without Madeline and Alison (which isn’t stolen from the boys at all – it’s a diminutive form of Alice, with history tracing back centuries.) Aubrey caught on because of a Bread song … and the well-established girl’s name Audrey.
Since sound is the only thing to go on, we’ll always get it wrong.
SIX: FAMILY NAMING TRADITIONS ENCOURAGE THE PRACTICE.
Too often, our sons receive family names. Our daughters? They’re given names that are pretty.
That bias helps explain why classic boy names remain in such rotation, changing relatively little over the years, while girls’ names feel far more subject to fashion.
But when you do encounter a family naming tradition, there’s a good chance it might be applied in a gender neutral fashion. This seems more true in the American South and perhaps New England, but examples are heard everywhere. Years ago, I asked a neighbor what she was planning to name her baby if it was a boy. She responded with her maiden name – something along the lines of Parker. And if it’s a girl? She laughed. Parker.
It’s nicely egalitarian, and might be worth embracing. Or, to think of it another way, it’s a shame to never use a beloved family name simply because you don’t have a son.
FIVE: SOMETIMES THE MOMENT DICTATES THE NAME.
Even families without specific traditions sometimes find themselves drawn to a specific name.
Kate Garry Hudon’s masculine middle acknowledges the passing of her uncle Garry, who died shortly before her birth. Similarly, Blake Lively might be comfortable with boy names on girls – but she and husband Ryan Reynolds named daughter James for Ryan’s departed dad.
Sometimes the idea of saving an honor name for a future son misses the point – it’s this pregnancy, and this child’s life connected to a specific moment.
FOUR: IS IT REALLY STEALING IF IT’S SITTING IN THE RECYCLE PILE?
Sometimes a name rises in use for boys and girls at the same time, and slows down for our sons as it gains blockbuster status for our daughters.
But that’s not a rule.
At other times, a masculine name is languishing, all-but-forgotten.
Some Laurences used to shorten their name to Lauren. And a small, but steady, number of men were named Lauren in the US. Just enough to put Lauren on the edge of the most popular boy names in the US for years.
But then Betty Joan Perske adopted the stage name Lauren Bacall, and it became a sensation for our daughters.
Was it a tailored twist on classic Laura? Or a straight-up hijacking of a boys’ name? It feels more like the former than the latter.
For an even more dramatic example, take Madison. The name left the boys” Top 1000 in the US after 1952. The movie Splash launched the name in 1984. Parents who considered the name Madison for their daughters knew all about Madeline and Allison, but probably had never encountered Madison as masculine.
If parents aren’t using it, does it stay in the vault? It seems open to re-discovery … even if that means we choose it for our daughters instead.
THREE: NAMES CAN – AND DO – HOLD STEADY AS UNISEX OR MASCULINE – EVEN WHEN THEY’RE USED IN BIG NUMBERS FOR GIRLS.
Girls have been named Dylan, Cameron, and Ryan, but all three of those names remain decidedly more popular for our sons.
Other names, like Rowan and Jordan, hold steady as unisex for years.
We can’t know what will happen, of course. But it’s a good reason to feel confident that your favorite boy name won’t be unwearable because of a television character/celebrity parent/someone commenting on an online forum adopted the name for a daughter.
TWO: A NEW GENERATION MINDS ALL OF THIS MUCH LESS.
Can you find girls who dislike being mistaken for a boy based on their name? Probably. And boys can object to meeting a girl who shares their name.
But the more common it becomes, the less anyone minds. The more we pause and ask if Charlie or Alex or Riley or Quinn is a boy or a girl. (Or don’t ask at all, because so often, it really doesn’t matter.)
And, of course, our kids surprise us. Because my son has played sports with a boy named Kelly. I’d asked if Kelly was a girl, and my son sputtered. “Who names a girl Kelly?” He knew one person with the name. That person was a boy. Obviously, it was a boy’s name. What a crazy question to ask!
ONE: THE PROBLEM ISN’T BOY NAMES ON GIRLS. IT’S THE IDEA THAT OUR BOYS CAN’T SHARE A NAME WITH SOMEONE ELSE’S DAUGHTER.
The right name can be the right name, nevermind if you welcome a daughter or a son.
It’s worth recognizing if your choice is controversial – and deciding how you feel about that in advance.
But ultimately, boy names on girls are only a problem when we behave as if being used for girls somehow taints names, making them less appropriate for our son.
SO … SHOULD YOU USE BOY NAMES ON GIRLS?
My main objection to boy names on girls isn’t about shrinking the pool of possible names for our sons.
It’s the idea that finding strong names for our daughters somehow requires eschewing anything feminine. Eleanor and Ruth find this idea ridiculous. Actually, so do Nancy and Amy and Angela and Marie and Christine and hundreds of other names, all worn by women who have excelled in any number of fields.
Tailored favorites, like Claire and Jane and Helen and Katherine, all feel conventionally and traditionally feminine without being frilly. But does it matter? Just look at the Forbes 100 index of the world’s most powerful women. For every Judith, there’s a Vicki.
Don’t embrace boy names on girls because it’s the only way to find strong names for our daughters. But if other reasons make a traditionally masculine name a compelling choice? Then proceed … with your eyes open.
How do you feel about boy names on girls? Have you ever considered BNOGs for your family?
First published on July 2, 2011, this post was revised and re-published on November 25, 2020.
This is really interesting, Abby, and I guess I’m not sure how I feel because I agree with so many different points! Yes, there are names and surnames. And, yes, many a surname has a quote-on-quote masculine meaning (i.e., son of), but then again many don’t! And, what if it is your maiden name and you love it and want to use it regardless of gender? What if it’s the last name of your favorite character ever in your favorite book from childhood? What if it’s your best friend’s last name? What if it’s your grandma’s maiden name, long since lost in your family tree? I say go for it. Girl or boy. But, what if you’re expecting a girl, likely your only child, and you want to honor your brother…by using his first name. And let’s say it’s Richard. Should you be able to? Well, yea! Same goes for baby boys. If you want to honor your mother Madeline with your son’s name, do it. And if you’ve loved Evangeline forever and can’t think of calling your child anything else, use it. Even if you are having a boy. But, don’t be naive and expect everyone to love it! I get the argument about not wanting to use “boys’ names” for girls until we can use “girls’ names” for boys without getting a second look, but the reality is that many people still frown on “boys’ names” on girls and the thought of “girls’ names” on boys is, for whatever reason, epically more horrifying for the general public. I don’t know why, and I don’t really want to concern myself with it, but it’s a reality. I think if you, as the parent, don’t have confidence in your choice and don’t love it enough to deal with the likely distaste from others, then you probably shouldn’t pull a gender swap on your child’s name. But, if you can take the heat, why not fuel the fire?
My own personal taste? Probably a little too classic and on-the-beaten-path to really want to fuel the fire. But, do I like those “unisex” names? Sometimes. Do I like surnames? Yep. Do I like occupational names? Yes! So, bring on your Quinn’s and Ellis’ and Halsey’s. Bring on your son named Shelby and your daughter named Toby. I’m not gonna bat an eye. But you know who is? My grandma. And maybe your next-door neighbor. And maybe even your best friend.
Another interesting thing to bring into this debate – word names. Is it me or are word names, be they nature-inspired or just plain words, more acceptable on girls? Rain and Melody and Fable and Dahlia and Serenity and Diamond. I’d say those are all girls. Sure, there are celebrity baby boys named Story and Morocco and Egypt and Sparrow and whatnot (well, not literally Whanot, I hope!), but Honor? Liberty? Satchel? And the newly-named Willow Sage? Girls. And, again, this is the celebrosphere we’re talking about. How many little boys do you know with word names? How many little girls?
I’ve heard of non-celebrity boys/men named Lake and River, so yes I do know of some RL males with word-type names.
Like I said, this wouldn’t bother me if it was done both ways (like it is in other languages, like French or Japanese). I do find it extremely sexist that it is socially acceptable naming their daughters Alexis, when a little boy named Margaret (or even a masculine name like Hilary or Jocelyn!) would be seen as child abuse.
As it stands, it’s just a reflection on our own society, where masculinity is something positive and femininity a weakness – hence it’s fine for girls to be like boys, but not the opposite.
Good post! It’s not the use of names like these on girls that bothers me, but rather those who don’t want to use them on boys once they become “girly” fearing the worst for their sons. Hence why when someone asks about a name like Avery or Harper for a boy I usually mention that you should still consider it because continuing to use such names for boys helps keep them masculine. Having a GN name (and being male) myself, I think the hype of a unisex-named boy being doomed in school and throughout life is exaggerated. Sure, I have had a fair share of “Isn’t that a girl’s name?” comments and letters mistakenly addressed to “Ms. Kelly Lastname” but the only full-fledged “teasing” I got was from someone who found anyway he could to tease people. With the current generation of babies and children having more names used both ways than ever before I think many of the names mentioned here can be comfortably used for either gender (and in the future expect more situations like what happened with the “Kelly Hildebrandt” couple in 2009).
About reason #9: From my experience the same is true for the guys with unisex names I know. I love my name, but I’ve also talked to another male Kelly who dislikes his name and goes by his MN instead. Whether it be for a boy or girl, some people like having a gender-ambiguous name while others don’t. A good compromise, like waltzingmorethanmatilda said, is to use a gender-specific middle name that can be used in addition to or instead of the unisex FN.
About the surnames comment: That’s why I feel a bit more defensive about names like Rory (a traditional Irish/Scottish boy’s name, with a masculine meaning on top of that) on a girl (Pam Satran, I forgive you though), while names originating as nature names/place names/surnames/etc. are more loosely gendered IMO (hence why I think names like Bailey, River, and Shannon are more doable either way). OTOH, the bias still creeps in with names like Savannah and Summer generally being regarded as strictly feminine.
I just may blow a gasket… About 99.9 percent of these so-called “boys” names being used for girls are SURNAMES. Surnames are not male. Calling a surname masculine strikes me as sexist.
Nearly all of the names discussed above are surnames, everything from Addison to Riley to Kelly and Jordan. Hilary, Lindsay, Tiffany, Kelsey and McKenzie are ALL surnames. Same for Ryan, Avery, Cameron, Madison, Allison, Tyler, Logan, Parker, Taylor, Blake, Quinn, Owen, Irving, Peyton, Kendall, Dexter, Meredith, Casey, Reese, Delaney, Scott, Todd, Travis and Bailey. Even my own name, Joy, is a surname.
Furthermore, many uber-male names have become surnames: James, Roberts, Richards, Williams, Patrick, Andrews, Thomas, Francis.
People have had surnames for hundreds of years, so they aren’t inherently masculine. (And, yes, I know that many surnames above have been used mostly for boys, and using surnames for given names is not new, but the explosion started around the 50s.)
Surnames are mostly masculine in etymology (since in most cultures the transmission of surnames is patrilineal). Therefore, most of them originate in male names – Addison (Adam’s son), Avery (same as Alfred), Madison (Maud’s son), Taylor (a tailor), Owen, Reese, Scott (masculine Welsh names). Plus they were traditionally used as a middle name, not a given name – usually in honour of the maternal family, a godparent, etc. The child would always have a “proper” given name.
Anyway, since they are literally “family names” I think it’s strange to use them as given names, especially if they have no relation whatsoever to your ancestry.
Most of them are SURNAMES with MASCULINE meanings. Anything starting with Mc like MacKenzie means “son of”! How is that appropriate on a baby girl?
I suppose I read “son of” as “descended from” – after all, if my last name were Jameson, odds are that my father’s name isn’t actually James, right? Because parents generally don’t call their kids James Jameson or John Johnson. (Though I guess Alfred Avery and Adam Addison are more plausible.) Still, you’d probably have to go back dozens and dozens of generations to find your original James … and so while I am, at some point, descended from my ancestral James, the meaning is softened.
On the other hand, James naming his daughter Jameson seems potentially more meaningful than James naming his daughter Emily or Olivia or Grace. In the absence of an English-language equivalent to denote a female descendant, “son” stands in for both, just like “mankind” is inclusive.
Guess I didn’t make my point very well. I just don’t feel that a name has been swiped from the boys if it’s a surname to start with. Show me a raft of little boys named Sabrina or Andrew shooting to the top 20 for girls and then I’ll be more sympathetic.
And I AM in the camp of uber-feminine names for girls. My own personal favorites are Caroline, Louisa, Georgiana, Genevieve, Suzanne, Madeleine, Eva, Chloe, Elizabeth, Katharine, Jane, Natalie, Marianne, Jeanne and Sabrina.
“…What I do have a problem with is how unbending our conceptualization of gender is. When the day comes that I hear/read someone suggest Aidan for a girl and then suggest Olivia for a boy, I
I have more of a problem with surname-napping. Probably because I am from the South where giving your maiden or other meaningful name is a custom, it drives me NUTS when people choose random surnames that they have no connection to. So when someone complains about Addison, Avery or the like going to the girls, I find it rather ironic. Most of these gender-bending names are actually surnames anyway (and yes, I know that line is blurry and my stance is somewhat flawed), and so haven’t been included in the canon of “Boys Names” for long anyway. And the argument that “there aren’t any boys names left” doesn’t really wash either, since there have always been far fewer boys names than girls. George, Charles, Thomas, Henry-these names have no risk of being taken over by the girls. It’s only when parents want to choose unusual, original names-and thus generally resort to the surname style-that they run into parents considering them for girls.
That’s fair enough, Caroline – I know someone who has a Very Significant Surname on her short list for a girl. It is also a name that reads gender-neutral, trendy, and is frequently subject to respellings. Her attitude is that it doesn’t spoil the meaning for her, and that’s great, but I can imagine a parent feeling like the name was ruined by its overuse.
I think all of us could name a Duggar-sized family of boys without feeling like we’d run out of options!
I tend to like gender crossovers in the middle slot as in, say Amelia George A. The names that really bug me are the 97 rhymes-with-Aiden names that are everywhere right now. Part of the problem is that I’m playing the Sib Set game over at YCII and so I’ve seen every permutation of the name as it goes from 1-799. Bah, what everyone else said.
Give it a few years and names like Riley, Avery, Peyton, Dakota, Reese, Emery, Finley, and Skylar will be fully feminine. That’s just how is works, it happened with other names, it will happen with those. Its different with Ryan, Cameron, Logan and Parker for example, because those names were always a lot more popular for boys than girls, so people’s perception on those names are that they’re firmly masculine.
I do not like boy names on girls, I just think what’s the point really? We dont see parents rushing to the “baby girl names” section of the book to name their son. And whether we like it or not, its VERY unlikely you’ll meet a male Whitney, Vivian, Hilary, Cassidy, Kelsey, Lindsay, Courtney, Jody, Lauren, Kimberley, Beverley, Leslie, Paige, Shelby, etc, especially under the age of 5.
You already see this happening with modern unisex names that parents already perceive as mostly feminine, like Addison, Madison, Aubrey, Bailey, Mackenzie, Haley, Ashley, Kenzie, etc, parents have ditched these for their sons because they’re “girly”.
Yes new unisex names arrive, almost always boy names in origin, and 95% are tipped feminine once they’ve run it’s course.
The same happens in the UK, but at least over there things are a little bit more balanced with names like Mackenzie, Bailey, Riley, Morgan, Sydney, Taylor, Finlay, Jamie, Ashley and Aubrey still seen as masculine.
It is frustrating that the perception is that names can only go one way … but Peyton has held steady and Jayden has skyrocketed for boys without girls’ use derailing it. Some spellings tend to signal gender – Payton is more popular for girls, as is Jaidyn. I do think this new bunch of names has some staying power on both sides of the chart.
I should also add, just to be clear, that I wasn’t trying to imply that only people in Wales would or should take issue with Emrys on a girl. Anyone who had first been introduced to the name as “masculine” first could find it uncomfortable to see it on a boy and might speak out about it on the internet. Equally, there are plenty of people in the country of origin who wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow about it.
Surname-firstnames have been used for both boys and girls for centuries, often on both genders within the same family. So Mason, Tate, Logan, Reeve, Cloudsly, Healy and the like have all happily sat on girls and boys in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.
I agree with Waltzing that there can be issues with cultural cross-over. As pointed out in Point 7, “very often a name was scarcely used for either gender when it is first discovered by the parents of girls”, and this is where people get tetchy in such an international forum as the internet. Because, “new” discoveries for parents in one country, are old established classics in others.
Lets say a couple in Ottawa see the name Emrys on a list and think it sounds really great for a girl and use it. They have no previous exposure to the name other than it sounds a bit like Emma and a bit like Alice. No one else they have ever met, or even in their state has used it or heard of it either and they get very positive feedback out it. In their own social context the name is perfectly acceptable and not at all shocking. However, once put on the internet (“my daughter is called Emrys”) the parents will be coming into contact with people on the other side of the pond for whom Emrys isn’t an unused new discovery but a crusty old reliable. They see Emrys and picture the old man next door, that cute male actor from that TV program, or their great great grandfather’s name and “Why didn’t you just call you daughter Albert?” comes back the response. Celtic names in particular (both Riley and Evan were used as an example), having been quite isolated for a long time to the British Isles, get used in this way quite a lot.
“Boys names on girls” is often perfectly fine and acceptable IRL, in the context of their own cultural and social situation,and not in any way scarring. The issues come when projected onto an international forum like the internet.
Excellent point, Elea – thanks!