View Message

New Post
Search
Help

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Opinions] Re: Connor (F)
by WinterWonderland
5/23/2021, 4:02 PM
in reply to a message by MasterCiaraXo
This makes me sad. I love it on boys. But once a traditionally masculine name becomes accepted as unisex, before long, it's lost to the boys altogether.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

- Dracotorix   +3
5/23/2021, 8:09 PM
Unisex means it's NOT lost to the boys at all though. It's only lost to the boys if it becomes feminine, but even then you can name your son whatever you want even if it's more common for girls.
vote up1
- MasterCiaraXo (ciara23)
5/24/2021, 9:14 AM
This has gone down in Naming History many times though. Ashley, Addison, Madison, Leslie, the list can go on. Now today most people probably can’t even imagine those names on a male. (Probably more so America than others) there’s nothing wrong with unisex names but just saying.
vote up1
- WinterWonderland
5/24/2021, 9:06 AM
Unisex SHOULD mean it's usable for both. It almost never works that way in the end. Ashley was considered male originally. Then unisex for a brief moment. And finally, exclusively female. Now, if you suggested naming a boy Ashley, you'd get all kinds of blowback from people saying it's feminine. It's the typical pattern.
vote up1
- Dianatiger
5/24/2021, 8:57 AM
Unisex for a time before it goes totally to the girls side...
vote up1
- Dianatiger
5/23/2021, 4:03 PM
I agree 100%
vote up1