Names and gender stereotyping

When I went to kindergarten most of my friends were girls, in fact all of my friends were girls except for one boy and his name was Chelsea. Looking back to that time I don’t think I quite understood that Chelsea wasn’t a girl. After all, he had a “girl’s” name and to my simple mind that meant he had to be a girl, right? Perhaps if I was in kindergarten today I would have assumed that half the girl’s in the class with names like Riley, Logan, Hunter and so on were in fact boys.

We progressed into elementary school together and at some point I thankfully learned more about the differences between girls and boys and that it wasn’t just based on a name. Looking back though, I did also observe just how confusing having a name of the “wrong” gender can be, for the teachers at least.

This experience I think led to my fascination with names. Today I notice the trend, which seems to get stronger and stronger, of parents giving their daughters so-called “strong” names, which most typically means “boys” names. Are there really no ‘strong” classical girl’s names that can be used?

While I don’t believe that names define gender and wish that parents should be able to name their child free from traditional gender assoications that put names on one side of a list or another and actually choose a name just because they like it or not, I dislike that for the most part this trend is also one way.

For the most part it seems socially acceptable, perhaps even more
desirable, to give a traditional boy’s name to a girl, but horror of
horrors should it go the other way. We seem to be suggesting that
giving a girl a boy’s name will lead her to be strong and empowered and
independent, suggesting that these are all male qualities that she
could not somehow achieve if she was not given a boy’s name to help her
along the way through life. Converesly to give a boy a more traditional
girl’s name leaves parents cringing at the idea that this would suggest
their boy was weak, or a sissy or gay or girly. Girly indeed! The idea
that association to anything female is to be avoided and has no
redeeming positive qualities.

So the trend continues as boys names cross from the boys into the
grey area of so-called unisex names which for the most part is a
misnomer for boys names used on girls. Indeed as a name nerd it is
amusing at times to see discussions on unisex names where people make a
list of unisex names for girls and unisex names for boys (the former
always much longer than the latter). Of course if a name was truly
unisex there would be just one list.

Then at some critical mass, the unisex name crosses into the domain
of the girl’s and thereafter it shall mostly remain. There is certainly
anecdotal evidence at least to suggest that the adoption of boys names
by girls is much higher than girls names by boys. Equally the
resistance of a name crossing from the boys to the girls is much lower
than the converse of a girls name crossing over to a boys name.

Trends certainly do change and over a timescale of 50-100 years
names that are considered as labelled for boys and girls now can
certainly change again. But the idea of associating gender and all the
stereotypical associations of that gender with names to my mind just
reinforces those stereotypes even further.

My challenge for parents would be that if they are looking for
strong, positive and empowering names for girls, look to a list of
traditional names for girls first and rethink those names, give them a
chance. You don’t have to use a boys name to give your daughter those
associations. At the same time, if you are truly in favor of cross
gender name swapping, then go ahead, but don’t be aghast at the idea of
finding a suitable girl’s name for your son too. If it works, it works
both ways! To suggest otherwise is playing into the gender stereotype
trap.