Behind the Name
the etymology and history of first names
Login   Register
Search

View Message

 Post a Message      Search      Help/Rules/FAQ      Board Home      Other Boards

<  >
Subject: Re: Is Charlie really a uni-sex name now?
Author: mirfak   (Authenticated as mirfak)
Date: May 12, 2012 at 2:17:35 PM
Reply to: Re: Is Charlie really a uni-sex name now? by Lily
I agree with you about Ashley, Lindsay, Shirley, Courtney, Stacy, Bailey, Madison, Avery, etc. being potentially "unisex" because they were never frequent for boys, and then became really popular for girls.

Charlie, though, has been one of the most common nickname names for boys over all time. Its popularity pattern is more like Joe or Jack. Joe was used quite a bit for girls, and hasn't returned; both Jack and Charlie are coming back for boys without ever having really bottomed out. Even Terry is still being used for boys, but Terry for girls is no longer charting. I don't think is it even possible for Charlie to ever be changed-over. That's why I say it can't be a "unisex" name. It has nothing to do really, with whether it sounds feminine enough or not - it's just because people's experience is that most Charlies are male, so Charlie "is" masculine. That's really the only way to define whether a name "is" masculine or feminine, IMO.

If the popularity for girls surpassed that for boys, and the popularity for boys started to fall, I might start to be convinced that it could become unisex. But for now, when it is used for a girl I think it is a male name used for a girl, not a unisex name.

- mirfak

Because this message is archived you cannot respond to it.

Messages in this thread:

Home : Boards : Name Opinions Message Board About | Copyright © | Terms | Contact
Advertising served by SheKnows Family