Gen-Z naming trends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember that online content is written to get you to click. I'll bet there's a kernel of truth, but in practice, most people will name their kids Henry or Eleanor.

Not Henry or Eleanor. You have to think the next generation of grandma names. We'll be seeing baby Susan, Lisa, Amy, Jennifer, Jessica, Heather, Angela, Christine, Scott, Kevin, Brad. . .

It's like the Boomer generation names got skipped. Where are all the little Barbara, Carol, Linda, Donna, Karen, Lois, Deborah and Cheryls? Will the next generation go straight to Gen X names?

I have often wondered the same. I keep looking for Lindas.

Yep. Our daughters and sons will love those names. It’s part of the popularity circle. It hasn’t been skipped - it’s just not due yet.

It's hard to see some of those names pre-Boomer making a come back like Dorothy, Phyllis, Bernice, Norma, Shirley, Nancy, etc. They don't sound good to my ear at all. Some names just never come back in style.

It's true some names never come back in style, but that doesn't mean the circular nature of popularity isn't real. Even from your list, Dorothy is absolutely making a comeback (along with Dorothea and Theodora, and the nicknames Dory, Dot, Thea, Teddy, etc.). I think Bernice is a stretch but Bernadette is starting to get some traction. And while I don't see Phyllis or Norma coming back anytime soon, I don't think it would take much for Nancy to make a resurgence, especially with the Nancy Drew association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

Agree these are mostly male names, though in the late 60s some of them were feminized by spelling them with "ie" instead of Y.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

Same with baby clothes. Going gender neutral just means dressing girls in "boy" clothes. I know so many new moms who tried that and then their daughters got to preschool and only wanted dresses, bows, ruffles, tutus, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

Same with baby clothes. Going gender neutral just means dressing girls in "boy" clothes. I know so many new moms who tried that and then their daughters got to preschool and only wanted dresses, bows, ruffles, tutus, etc.

I have two girls and as babies put them mostly in neutral clothes. Once they were old enough to choose, one wanted all “girly” clothes with pink and floofy, glitter etc. The other goes back and forth.

I have no problem with this as it is their choice (influenced by societal expectations, peers, etc for sure). When they are babies they have no choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

Same with baby clothes. Going gender neutral just means dressing girls in "boy" clothes. I know so many new moms who tried that and then their daughters got to preschool and only wanted dresses, bows, ruffles, tutus, etc.

I have two girls and as babies put them mostly in neutral clothes. Once they were old enough to choose, one wanted all “girly” clothes with pink and floofy, glitter etc. The other goes back and forth.

I have no problem with this as it is their choice (influenced by societal expectations, peers, etc for sure). When they are babies they have no choice.

I was the same with my DD (whose now loves pink and bows) but the point is that it’s not really a unisex trend because boys don’t get dressed in unisex clothes or get unused names— they are dressed in boy clothes and get masculine names.

[Anonymous]

Unisex names really just erase femininity and years of progress. You aren’t being progressive or novel you’re actually doing the opposite but maybe don’t have enough knowledge of history or foresight to even see that what appears as a trend is actually very much socially engineered to erase progress for women. Kind of like people with ovaries or birthing people. That’s not progressive, that’s going back to the 1800s when you didn’t talk about being pregnant if you were a woman. Hope that most gen zers get it before it’s too late. Unfortunately I see most of them as having the impression that they think for themselves or are progressive but have so much influence from social media that their entire generation is like one big social experiment. But hey what does a gen x’er know... we were only the last generation not to be raised solely on computers. It’s not like we could see it both ways or anything....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

Same with baby clothes. Going gender neutral just means dressing girls in "boy" clothes. I know so many new moms who tried that and then their daughters got to preschool and only wanted dresses, bows, ruffles, tutus, etc.

I have two girls and as babies put them mostly in neutral clothes. Once they were old enough to choose, one wanted all “girly” clothes with pink and floofy, glitter etc. The other goes back and forth.

I have no problem with this as it is their choice (influenced by societal expectations, peers, etc for sure). When they are babies they have no choice.

I was the same with my DD (whose now loves pink and bows) but the point is that it’s not really a unisex trend because boys don’t get dressed in unisex clothes or get unused names— they are dressed in boy clothes and get masculine names.

Agree. Neutral clothes means they are just not girl clothes. Nature eventually wins in most cases. It's just funny when the parents who think they are so edgy and different succumb and dress their preschoolers in Disney princess wear despite their best efforts to dress them like boys.

[Anonymous]

This is interesting. Both of my Gen-Z cousins who have had kids went the gender neutral name route. Their kids are Taylor, Emerson, Sage, Finley, and Evers.

I may be in the minority, but I like "older" sounding names like Dorothy, Daisy, Janet, etc. for girls.

I'm 45 and named my oldest Maeve 20 years ago.

[Anonymous]

I have an 8 year old and a five year old. My DH and I are both Gen X. Our older son and his classmates tend to have more creative, Freakonomics' names associated with highly educated parents (think Zen, Atticus, Emerson for a girl, Alice, Eamon). Our younger son and his classmates have what I consider grandparent names, both their grandparents (like Mark, Patrick, Barbara, Billy, Jane, Ellen).

[Anonymous]

*both their grandparents and great grandparents. My son's friends are Estelle, Ira, Walter, Patrick, Brendan, Lauren, Ellen, Billy, Jack. I also notice a lot of people naming after siblings like Brendan and Lauren (kids' aunts and uncles).

[Anonymous]

My generation Z cousins named their kids Logan and Taylor (both boys) and Maxwell and Harrison (nn Harry), the later two which are family names (my grandpa is Harrison, Maxwell is my Nana's maiden name).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My generation Z cousins named their kids Logan and Taylor (both boys) and Maxwell and Harrison (nn Harry), the later two which are family names (my grandpa is Harrison, Maxwell is my Nana's maiden name).

DD (3) is in a preschool gymnastics class of about 12 kids, and there are 3 Logans. I thought I was going crazy the first day. Because it's not really my style I had no idea how popular it was, or how long it's been that popular.

[Anonymous]

I'm a younger millennial. Most of my millennial friends haven't had kids yet, but the ones who have chose names like Susannah, Elijah, Peter, Sarah, Thomas, Emilia (I know two baby Emilias), Josephine, and Ruth.

[Anonymous]

I’m a younger millennial and my classmates that had kids in the last couple years have named their kids

Jane
Fern (girl)
Colette
Henry x 2
Oakley (girl)
Burard (boy)
Layla
Avila
Rowan (boy)
Reese (girl)
Adelynn