Anonymous wrote:Everyone from here on should be named Pat. The end.

or Chris

I wonder if it has more to do with overall trends than being generational. I’m an older millennial and H is Gen X. We just had our first child, both first and middle names are nature themed, with the first one being slightly more feminine (but still a name some males have had), middle name is totally gender neutral and not even really a name, at least I’ve never heard it as a name.

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.

No, not according to trends. Henry and Eleanor will sound “2010” to them. But few will go for some of the crazy names listed. I think going gender-neutral is a given. It’s happening already.

There will still be multiple Bens in the class don’t worry.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time for something new. I think we nailed the Gen Z new trends with our DD’s permanent nickname (single syllable) but not her given name (which is heavy and three syllables).

We did this too (4 years ago) and to me it's the best of both worlds. I think the single syllable, somewhat unisex nickname is great because it's so versatile, but I also think that some girls/women (obviously not all) will always crave feminine names. So having the longer, more feminine, multi-syllabic option is nice.

I think many of the names in the article are kind of neat but, other than not being gendered, actually way too specific. Like right in this moment a lot of people would find it very cool to have a name like Fox or Xerxes. But your kid will have their name for, hopefully, 80 or 90 years. What happens if they are 20 years old and just do not feel like a Xerxes? Or no one ever knows how to pronounce it? I know the article says that they might just adopt a new name. Which, fine. But I did try to give my child a name they could carry their whole lives in some form or another. I think of it like a gift and I want to give them something useful and versatile.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:It’s time for something new. I think we nailed the Gen Z new trends with our DD’s permanent nickname (single syllable) but not her given name (which is heavy and three syllables).

We did this too (4 years ago) and to me it's the best of both worlds. I think the single syllable, somewhat unisex nickname is great because it's so versatile, but I also think that some girls/women (obviously not all) will always crave feminine names. So having the longer, more feminine, multi-syllabic option is nice.

I think many of the names in the article are kind of neat but, other than not being gendered, actually way too specific. Like right in this moment a lot of people would find it very cool to have a name like Fox or Xerxes. But your kid will have their name for, hopefully, 80 or 90 years. What happens if they are 20 years old and just do not feel like a Xerxes? Or no one ever knows how to pronounce it? I know the article says that they might just adopt a new name. Which, fine. But I did try to give my child a name they could carry their whole lives in some form or another. I think of it like a gift and I want to give them something useful and versatile.

It’s time for something new. I think we nailed the Gen Z new trends with our DD’s permanent nickname (single syllable) but not her given name (which is heavy and three syllables).

I’m 35 and just named my daughter something that could go either way. I did this for her career. I don’t want her resume or application judged based on her gender.

I can definitely get on board with gender fluid or unisex names. And I’ll be happy to see Ellie/Ella and Jackson go.

About 9 months after I named my daughter, I heard someone say they named their daughter Alexis so that the child could write “Alex” on a resume if they wanted to. I so wish I had done that!

This was in 2009. I am so on board with more gender-neutral names.

I don't hate it. Everything comes in waves, and the super long, multisyllabic has had its day. And will again.

I'd rather meet a little boy named Fox or Nyx than Jackson or Remington, I can tell you that much.

Everyone from here on should be named Pat. The end.

Just more narcissistic behavior from people who are supposed to be selfless parents.

Just read this article and it blew my mind: https://nameberry.com/blog/how-gen-z-will-revolutionize-baby-names

First off, I had no idea Gen Z was so different than Millennials with naming trends. I'm an old Millenial and we are not that different than Gen X in our choices. I have lots of Gen X friends and their kids are named stuff that is a similar vibe to what we are considering (for reference our short list includes Daisy and Maxine). Other than the nature names mentioned in the article, none of the trends mentioned sound appealing. And even with the nature names, I think I gravitate to more traditional names (like, for instance, Daisy for a girl) than some of the stuff they mention (Tupelo? Gull?).

I sort of get the idea of choosing a name that could go non-binary or masculine/feminine (they mention Thomas Jane, for instance) to reflect changing attitudes about gender. One reason Maxine is appealing to us is that it's a feminine name that could easily go more masculine if our DD decides when she is older that she is a not a feminine person. But the idea of choosing a name like Nyx or something sounds like too much for me. Just not my thing.

Any actual Gen Zers on here who can weigh in. Or younger millennials -- maybe this doesn't sound as out there to you? I know I'm old.