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.
Such an interesting debate on here. Names have been borrowed by both genders throughout the ages. However, this cannot be viewed as not being colored at all by patriarchy. After all, I have known Johnnies, Billies, and Charlies with nicknamey forms of their fathers’ names. I even knew an older female James, named after her father. In all of these cases, it was because they had saved the name for a junior, but finally gave up and settled with using it on a girl. So, in some (not all) cases, it was still influenced by the patriarchy.
Names are not ruined by girls using them… but if the name becomes overwhelmingly used by girls, it may become inconvenient. I saw this with a brother with a name that became overwhelmingly female… Simple things, like people thinking he was using a fake id, getting assigned to the wrong locker room, winning Prom Queen (someone nominated him as a mean joke… and he won), etc. So, it’s not a “he’ll get beat to a pulp”, but more a “do I really want him to potentially need to bring 3 forms of ID”?
Then the final issue, which has already been discussed… Yes, name your daughter Kyle. It has a nice sound, so why not? Because until you’re truly willing to name your son Mary, you’re not saying “gender doesn’t matter”. Instead, you’re saying “masculine is superior to feminine.” And then you can listen to how many parents say things like how they want their daughter to have a “strong” (read: masculine) name, not a “frilly” name (read: feminine).
So, I do think you’re rushing to a bit of a conclusion about why people don’t like this trend. Yes, some people may think their son, Robin, may get beat to a pulp. However, there are also many others (including a non-name nerd friend who recently mentioned this to me) who view it as potentially inconvenient or simply reinforcing patriarchy. Once Mary becomes as popular on boys as James is on girls, then I will completely support this trend.
“Then the final issue, which has already been discussed… Yes, name your daughter Kyle. It has a nice sound, so why not? Because until you’re truly willing to name your son Mary, you’re not saying “gender doesn’t matter”. Instead, you’re saying “masculine is superior to feminine.” And then you can listen to how many parents say things like how they want their daughter to have a “strong” (read: masculine) name, not a “frilly” name (read: feminine).”
PREACH!
YES YES YES. This has always been my issue – until we start talking about girl names on a boy (GNOB) in the same way, this really, really isn’t about gender neutrality at all.
I’m all for using family names on kiddos of either gender, but otherwise the justification for this trend irks me.
That said, the coach for the newly formed Racing Louisville women’s soccer team is a man called Christy, and I absolutely adore it. I think he is Irish (I assume his name is short for Christian, but I really have no idea). I just thought it was a refreshing change to see a name that most in the US think of as a girl’s name on a man.
I always chuckle a little when people say “I could not imagine a girl named X, but I could totally see a girl named X.” Once upon a time no one could imagine a girl named Jocelyn or Evelyn, Shannon or Kelly, Ryan or Michael. Saying that there was once a boy named Evelyn as the same time as a girl was named Evelyn is to me the same thing as saying there once was a girl named Shannon and a boy named Shannon at the same time. The more time passes, the more names almost always trend female. Over time, we can “imagine” those names on girls much more than we can “imagine” others that still retain a masculine edge.
Either way, my biggest beef with this trend is not really about the names themselves but the societal perceptions, as a few people have already mentioned up thread. I will be all for boy’s names on girls when it is reciprocated and girl’s names are used on boys. It is isn’t “hip” “cute” or “trendy” when a boy is named Elizabeth or Jessica, it is a recipe for shunning and a lifetime of embarrassment. As a feminist, the double standard leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.
Not rally sure if I would ever give my child a name that feels like it belongs to the opposite sex, but when it comes to middle names I’m not really sure what the problem is. They’re only middle names. At work I constantly see names of people where the middle names “oficially” belong to the opposite sex.
I prefer girly names for girls and boyish names for boys. My friends think Ebony is a unisex name I think its 4 girls and girls only.
I see what you did there with Madison and splash.
My daughter is named Riley Anne! Riley is my maiden name, so it worked out well!
The reaction to boys names on girls is now pretty mild compared to the opposite of using girl’s names on boys. Comments like “gross” even get used in those situations. So there is a double standard, added to an almost irrational fear around giving a boy a name that could be used by a girl, even if it’s not that common. Recently I’ve even seen people put off using Sawyer for a boy because there is a perception it is crossing to the girls even though it ranks around the 200s for boys and not in the top 1000 for girls. If a name is really “unisex” then it should be usable for both genders, and not unisex for girls and unisex for boys. What does that really mean if you start to gender differentiate unisex names? There is also this myth that a boy who meets a girl with the same name will somehow be scarred for life. That’s just irrational. Sure there may be awkward moments, and teasing too, but teasing is part of being a kid, if it’s not your name it’s something else.As a guy with a “girl’s” name I wish people would be more open minded about this. There are even cultural differences and people seem to be so ignorant of these. Ashley and Robin and Terry are common names for boys in the UK. Tracey is a girl’s name. It’s more like the opposite in the US. And recently I saw a thread somewhere about naming a boy Andrea because of Italian heritage and what the reactions would be like.
I dislike many unisexual names on girls because I think it implies that a girl can only be equal to the boys if she’s got a boy’s names. I’ve read so many times in forums that giving a girl a boy’s name will give her an edge later on in life and I can’t even describe how much I resent that view point.
I agree that many names that seem dated on a girl sound fresh on a boy, like Kelly, Shelby, Ashley.
I think it’s good that newer unisexual names like Jayden, Riley and Peyton aren’t being completely given up by the boys although.
I totally agree with you about using one gender-bending name per child. I hate the birth announcements that don’t list the sex of the baby, because sometimes it is really hard to tell.
Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is. I love the names Sawyer, Emerson, Avery, Sage, and Taylor for boys and that didn’t stop because they are being used on girls too. I went to school with boys and girls named Casey, Jamie, Leigh/Lee & Aaron/Erin and it didn’t scar anyone. Plus, even the popular names aren’t used as much as in the past so the chance of a boy and girl with the same name being in the same class (especially the further down you go on the list) is slim.
If you look at the soc sec list, you will find nine boys named Elizabeth, thirteen boys named Ella, seven boys named Grace, twenty boys named Emily, & seven boys named Victoria so there are some parents who will use girl names on boys.
Good post, Abby. I enjoyed reading this and everyones’ comments.
Happy 4th!
Sarah
Many of those obviously “wrong gender” names that are very low on the list (this goes both ways) are more likely than not errors in the SSA recording the person’s gender. (Before the early 1990s or so in the days before computers were prevalent these errors were more common, with many of the most popular names having enough errors accumulated to show up in the top 1,000 of the opposite gender.)
Yeah, I figured some of those were mistakes, but I’ve run across baby boys named Emily, Evelyn, Haley, and Grace when searching through birth announcements for my blog so some of them are true. You could tell that Emily’s parents were foreign so maybe they just didn’t realize that they gave their son such a feminine name. I shouldn’t have used such extreme examples to show that some parents use “girl names” on boys, just not to the extent of “boy names” on girls.
Cheers.
So-called girls names that I would give to a son:
Sojourner
Madrigal
Lark
Raven
Firenze
Fiore
Monserrate
Topaz
Shiloh
Averil
Sirocco
Betony
Onyx
Romilly
Ember
Haven
Traditionally Maculine names that I would give to a daughter (so, a shorter list):
Meriwether
Huckleberry
Archer
Florizel
Cymbeline
Seraphim
Haven
…Something tells me I’m the odd one here. This happens to me all the time, where I either see a name and think it would be cool for a boy, or meet a man or fictional male character with this name, and then I look it up and it’s only listed under girls. So as it turns out, my tastes for boy’s aren’t solidly masculine to the rest of the world. But looking at the list, it’s not really the same thing as naming a boy Elizabeth.
The thing don’t like about girls being named Barkley, Ryan, Emerson, and Kyle is that I didn’t find them particularly appealing as boy’s names to begin with! Charlie for a girl? That’s kind of cute, I guess.