Baby names: your opinion on the "masculine" but not uncommon female names?

Aubrey, Mackenzie, Madison, Jamie are not "unsex" names, nor will they ever be.

Aubrey means "Elfin King". King. Not Queen.

Mackenzie means "Son of Coinneach". Madison means "Son of Maude; Matthew's son". Son. Not daughter.

The definition of unisex from Dictionary.com is:

Unisex

adjective

1. of, designed, or suitable for both sexes; not distinguishing between male and female; undifferentiated as to sex: unisex clothes.

Is a masculine name designed or suitable for both sexes? No. Because it's masculine. Masculine = male. Male = one sex. Is a masculine name not distinguishing between male and female? No. Masculine = male. Male = distinguishing between male and female, the name is male. Is a masculine undifferentiated to a sex? No. A masculine name is masculine. Masculine = male. Male = Differentiating a sex.

[Edit] "Yes, but Aubrey, as well as other similar names, have been used in girls."

So if one person used Edward on a girl, would that make it "unisex"?

Why this is such a big issue on YA is beyond me. Because these types of arguments are literally unheard of in the real world. Granted I may not agree with giving a girl a masculine name, but I've come to learn and accept that I have no control over what others do. And even though others seem to enjoy ruining names like Aubrey and Mackenzie for everyone doesn't seem to matter to them because it's constantly a me me me universe.

It is not your RIGHT to name the child you've been blessed with, it is your PRIVILEGE, and there is such a big difference between those two things. The day many of you realize this is the day you'll realize that this argument is bleak.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE NAME CHANGES!!!! GIRLS WILL HAVE BOY NAMES AND BOYS WILL HAVE GIRL NAMES!!!! Why does it matter what you name the child every name that has ever come into this world will always be in this world. Yes they will go back in forth from different genders. But thats just what happens. Things change people change the mind set changes. So why argue weather or not the names are masculine or feminine enough to be used on a certain gender. In my eyes there are boy and girl names, None of this Unisex bull crap. Some people just like certain names on other genders. If people only look at the meanings, than there wouldnt have ever been a girl Mackenzie/Madison in the world today. But guess what there is, and you know why, because not everyone cares about the meaning or the origin of the name. If that is how you chose to name your child(by the meaning) than that you others dont, and the meaning obviously came from somewhere, people make up stuff all the time. People name a little boy Mackenzie and think hes a little king so all of a sudden that becomes the meaning of the ******* name!? So the name "Bearatopis" yeah i made it up, it means "cute little princess' so not it can only be used on a girl. Right? NOPE!!! wrong, any name can be used for any gender. Alright, did i get that through to the people saying that naming your kid Aubrey is cruel because it was used for a boys name for CENTURIES and a girls name for only 80 years or so.

Well i think ive made my point to the people that are going to rate this thumbs down because you dont agree that just says that you like the names that she/he has listed above as strickly boy names, like i said there is no wrong gender for a child!

Thank you have a nice day :)

Little_Boys: Connor John Woodard Austin Brett Woodard Casey Michael Woodard Jordan Taylor Woodard Kyle Jacob Woodard Michael Paul Woodard Corey David Woodard Brendon Yuri Woodard Holden John Woodard Ross Brian Woodard Davide Kyle Woodard Dylan Jason Woodard Jason Connor Woodard Jared Harrison Woodard Harrison Eli Woodard William Tyler Woodard Tyler William Woodard Baby_Girls: Ashlyn Brooke Woodard Ashlee Krystal Woodard Delilah Jane Woodard Penelope Anne Woodard Penelope Emma Woodard Emma Katherine Woodard Victoria Elaine Woodard Evelyn 'Evie' Alyssa Woodard Joanna Renee Woodard Autumn Railene Woodard Cara Linda Woodard (Cara Linda approach 'beautiful face' in spanish) Ella Anne Woodard Bella Luna Woodard (manner 'wonderful night time' in spanish) Ariana Brooke Woodard Alice Emma Woodard And that's all I've received. Congratulations in your baby! The entire best.

This section is infested with rudeness, intolerance, and extremists when it comes to this topic. That's why I only really come on here to answer a few of my contacts' questions. I'm tired of the gender police telling everyone that their OPINION is the ONLY opinion. It's incredibly illogical and I hate people with such terrible black and white thinking issues.

Anywho, I think it's stupid. I've seen the gender police telling people that they can't use Shannon or Evelyn on a girl! Seriously people?! Those names are considered COMPLETELY feminine now! Personally I would name a girl Sawyer or Lachlan without batting an eye, so you should really stop bullying the people who would use Evelyn on a girl =P And you are bullying people on here.

I LOVE your last additional detail Rachel! =D "So, because the definition of a name says it, that means if we don't follow it, a girl with a name meaning "king" is going to go through life being disgraced, because everyone knows every definition of a baby name on the top of their head." << SO TRUE! I couldn't agree more! "Guess my name has to be changed. I'm a human, and Rachel means Ewe. Oh, that explains why I went through my life thinking I was a barnyard animal." LOLOL! Now THAT is a logical argument! The gender police are such hypocrites when it comes to that sort of thing. According to them, name meanings only matter when they have masculine meanings *rolls eyes* Give me a break!

@Hannah - Um, "Noah" spelled Noa is a LEGITIMATE feminine name. So naming a girl Noah is just a different spelling of a real girls name. You people really need to do better research.

@Fatality and Tჩe เภƒคო๏ยร Յยภภუ - Yes, it would.

@Sian - Yup, that's what we're saying. Culture changes, and names are a part of culture, so if culture changes so Vincent is used on girls, it can and should be used on girls.

@Spencer ❥ Rowan - That is a FABULOUS argument! I definitely agree =)

@SamanthaღAdaCharlotteღ090812ღ - Excellent argument =)

@Lindsay J - She's not being snappy, she's just pointing out the illogical and hypocritical nature of your argument. If you can't take it then you shouldn't have answered.

Watch out everyone who answers this - the gender police have a gang of followers who thumbs them up no matter how rude they are and thumbs down everyone else no matter how awesome of an argument they make. That's one reason I don't like this site.

I really hate masculine sounding girl names, and unisex names in general, but Aubrey, McKenzie, Madison, and Jamie are all boy names. It doesn't matter if there are girls with those names. The meanings do not change.

You're getting a bit off topic and slightly more melodramatic. A girl with the name meaning king will not necessarily be disgraced, it just means her name was meant for boys. Naming a blonde child with a name that means dark hair is not the same as naming a girl a boy name. And Rachel means Ewe, which means FEMALE sheep. Therefore, If someone used Rachel for a boy it would be silly. I wish people would just name boys and girls accordingly.

Also, if you're going to be snappy and condescending after asking for people's opinions, don't ask the question in the first place.

I don't like unisex names on either gender. To me it sounds odd on both. I know that Addison means "son of Adam", but I would never name a boy that (nor would I want to). Its too feminine now. One thing that really bothers me is completely and utterly masculine names (James, Noah, Evan, etc..) are used on girls. I mean, really?! Kendall I can forgive, but naming your daughter James?! *head desk* Okay. I'm done ranting...

Let me ask you something:

If a thousand people suddenly decided to name their sons Jane, Elizabeth and Sophia, would that make them "gender neutral?" No! Of course not! Because those are girl names with centuries worth of history as girl names that cannot be stamped out just because they've been slapped on the incorrect gender!

And yet... that's what happened with those boy names you mentioned, and hundreds more. Ignorant parents are grabbing active boy names left, right and centre, wrestling them to the ground, hog-tying them and saddling them on their daughters. Aubrey, McKenzie, Madison, Jamie are no more feminine or 'neutral' than Arielle, Michaela, Madeleine and Jamesette are. And yet, both blindly and ignorantly you and your kind foolishly claim otherwise. -_-

Aubrey - How can something that means "KING" be 'gender neutral?'

McKenzie/Madison - How can something that means "SON OF..." be 'gender neutral?'

Jamie - How can something that's a diminutive form of "JAMES" be considered 'gender neutral?'

I can see what you're trying to say, but there are just too many holes in the logic for your argument to hold up. Those names you have listed, and so many more are all masculine, end of story. People started slapping these names on girls because they were and still are in desperate frothing-at-the-mouth need for unique names. And what's more unique, for a girl, than a boy name?

Essentially, it's stealing. And what's worse is that the people who convert these names to unisex have somehow come to this conscious decision that, once a formerly all-masculine name becomes unisex, it's no longer appropriate for a boy because it's 'too girly' and 'he'll be teased', and you're a 'horrible person' for wanting to use a masculine-turned-unisex name on your son - which ENTIRELY defeats the purpose of these names being unisex, might I add!

They completely disregard the fact that these names, and so many more, have been used for boys for CENTURIES! Take the name Robin, for example:

Robin is a diminutive form of Robert, so I don't see how that's feminine. Plus, the two nickname options are "Rob" and "Robbie" and those aren't exactly sterling examples of femininity either. Not to mention, Robin has CENTURIES worth of history as a male name (Robin Hood, anyone?), whereas girls have only been officially using it for a little over 80 years - not even a full century. It's easy to see that, looks and sound aside, Robin is far more of a boy name than it is a girl name. And yet, people don't care about that. In fact, most people (people like YOU) completely ignore the fact that it was ever a boy name - and will whine, wail and moan about you using it for a boy until they're blue in the face.

At the end of the day, I hate ALL unisex names; with the exception of TRUE unisex ones such as Leslie, Shannon, Kelly, Evelyn, Meredith etc. Still, my issue is that people aren't stopping at the soft, gentle boy names (like the ones you've listed), because those options aren't 'unique' anymore; and unique is the reason why they were unjustly saddled on girls in the first place.

Harlow, Marley, Charlie, Jamie, Jordan, Billy, Bobby, Quinn, Riley, Skye, Skylar, Rowan, Flynn, Finley, Sutton, Elliott, Kendall, Kennedy, Maddison, Emerson, Addison, Hadley, Henley, Hartley, Harley, Leslie, Meredith, Remi, Shiloh, Avery, Aubrey, Blaire, Briar, Ariel, Eden, Ever, Blake, Sidney, Morgan, Logan, Ezra, Cameron, Spencer, Parker, Emery, Ellery, Harper, Paige, Paisley, Mackenzie, McKenna, McKinley, Delaney, Robin, Mallory, Marion, Bailey, Peyton, Hunter, Dylan, Rae, Brennan, Devin, Erin, Casey, Shannon, Kelly, Carson, Lennon, Lindsey, Teagan, Bryce -

they're becoming far less unique than they used to be. In fact, at this point in time most are grossly over-popular for girls, so people are now moving on to more extreme alternatives - bigger, more 'unique' fish. This is why so many people, on this site alone, are asking about Logan, Hunter, Bobby, Rowan, Elliott, Benson, Dylan Henry (one whole name) and even Montgomery, for girls! Are you totally fine what that? Are you proud of that? Do you support that?

THAT is why I'm against modern-unisex names, because people aren't stopping! They've gotten bored of the over-popular, more boyish and cutesy ones and decided to tackle full-on masculinity. And what can be said against it? People have already laid claim to soft boy names like Marley, Harlow and Kendall, and just because they're gentle and sweet doesn't make them any less masculine. So, logically speaking, if people can have soft boy names for their daughters, why can't they have rough ones?

Again, this is why I'm against modern-unisex names because, with modern-unisex names, it's either all or nothing. At the moment - judging by how many female Blakes and Parkers there are - 'all' is winning. And then what? What will boys have left that hasn't already been claimed for girls in the next 10 to 12 years? The thought of them having next to nothing is depressing, but it's going to happen, mark my words...

I seriously don't care what gender the name originated on, I will use a name whatever gender I please. Why? My family, my choice to use whatever name I want.

No matter what gender the name originated on or the history of a name, whatever gender that name is popular on will prevail. You can ***** about it all you want but that doesn't change the fact that someone, somewhere is naming their daughter "Addison".

If they are on par with the two genders, they are now techincally unisex. Ex- Emerson is on par with boys and girls (although it is higher on the girl list) therefore now considered unisex. But it isn't the end of the world. Boys are not going to run out of names. The genders can share names.

How about the people that use boy names on girls because they like it... not to be unique.?

You can hate unisex names all you want but seriously realize that there are some people that like if not love unisex names/boy names on girls. Hellooo, everyone likes different things!

No one has rights to the names, so it can't be stolen. And people act as if once a girl has it, it's unusable for boys. It isn't.

Off topic- Marley is used more on girls

Sooooooo, essentially, what you're saying is that, if people started slapping Vincent on girls, and it becomes far more popular for girls than for boys, that would make it 'gender-neutral' by your standards? Think before you type. -_-