[Opinions] Re: Brennan
in reply to a message by Jennifer Tilley
Brennan is all boy to me, and i detest boys names on girls. Just use Brenna for a girl if you like that or use brennan for a boy.
Brenna rose
Brenna Caitlin
Brenna Danielle
Brenna Penelope
Brenna Rhiannon
Brenna Ruth
Brenna Juliet
Brenna Roselle
Brenna Ruby
--------Signature--------
ღPlease rate my PNLsღ: http://www.behindthename.com/pnl/82160 ♥(New names added 2/17/19)♥
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/389267/Mediae
Brenna rose
Brenna Caitlin
Brenna Danielle
Brenna Penelope
Brenna Rhiannon
Brenna Ruth
Brenna Juliet
Brenna Roselle
Brenna Ruby
--------Signature--------
ღPlease rate my PNLsღ: http://www.behindthename.com/pnl/82160 ♥(New names added 2/17/19)♥
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/389267/Mediae
Replies
Those names started out as boys name but were usurped by parents for girls. And now hardly anyone uses them for boys, because they've become "girly."
This message was edited 3/21/2019, 9:03 AM
There's no need to be willfully obtuse, we all know that unisex names exist - that is, names that are used (or, in the case of many you listed, have been used in the past) for both genders in significant numbers. That doesn't mean that you have to *like* such names for both genders. Whatever names other people choose to give their children, one may see a name as sounding more like one gender or the other, and may dislike that name on the gender ones feels it is less suited for. It doesn't have to be that complicated; people have preferences.
And I don't agree that Brennan is unisex. Even if some might think it would sound good on a girl, or even choose to name a girl Brennan, it is used and always has been used overwhelmingly more for boys. Liking a name that is traditionally a boy's name for a girl doesn't make it suddenly not traditionally a boy's name.
And I don't agree that Brennan is unisex. Even if some might think it would sound good on a girl, or even choose to name a girl Brennan, it is used and always has been used overwhelmingly more for boys. Liking a name that is traditionally a boy's name for a girl doesn't make it suddenly not traditionally a boy's name.
Logan is still overwhelmingly used for boys. It has been used for girls in the last few years, but it seems more like a fad than stable usage.
Idk I’ve mostly known girl Logans born in the early 90s.
I absolutely agree! Plus...Brenna is a very lovely name. Simply adore it (:
Why do you detest boy names on girls? I noticed quite a few people have strong opinions on the subject.
This message was edited 3/20/2019, 7:51 AM
Usually because it's a 1 way street. It's much rarer for girls names to be used on boys so it doesn't seem fair. Once a name starts being used more on girls, it won't be used on boys as much anymore, because it will be seen as too feminine.
Idk, I feel like that's a societal problem that happens with so many things besides names––e.g., career fields that become feminized once women begin to participate in them (nursing, teaching) versus career fields that become masculinized when more men start participating in them (authorship, film, cinematography). In a similar way, I can see how a name can gain feminine and masculine connotations over time, and why they change over time.
However, I don't think names get nearly as drastically feminized so quickly or that they always go in the feminizing direction. Tatum is traditionally a feminine name, but it sounds fairly masculine and is quickly gaining in ranking for boys. And most of the cases we see of "boy" names becoming "girl" names are from the 1800s and early 1900s, but it still took decades for that change to take place.
Either way, if society sees a name becoming too feminine or effeminate to use for a boy, even if it was only a few years ago then that's an issue with pervasive toxic masculinity and social insecurity. Like, well-established feminine names like Ashley could be considered a stretch for a boy, especially to protect kids from bullying, but even if more girls are being named Forest or Cameron that doesn't necessarily mean that 1) these names will become feminine like the small number that become primarily feminine rather than truly genderless or that 2) we should be supporting a culture of toxic masculinity / masculine insecurity in the first place. Rather, I think we should be welcoming a more nuanced and fluid understanding of how concepts and names and expressions become gendered over time.
However, I don't think names get nearly as drastically feminized so quickly or that they always go in the feminizing direction. Tatum is traditionally a feminine name, but it sounds fairly masculine and is quickly gaining in ranking for boys. And most of the cases we see of "boy" names becoming "girl" names are from the 1800s and early 1900s, but it still took decades for that change to take place.
Either way, if society sees a name becoming too feminine or effeminate to use for a boy, even if it was only a few years ago then that's an issue with pervasive toxic masculinity and social insecurity. Like, well-established feminine names like Ashley could be considered a stretch for a boy, especially to protect kids from bullying, but even if more girls are being named Forest or Cameron that doesn't necessarily mean that 1) these names will become feminine like the small number that become primarily feminine rather than truly genderless or that 2) we should be supporting a culture of toxic masculinity / masculine insecurity in the first place. Rather, I think we should be welcoming a more nuanced and fluid understanding of how concepts and names and expressions become gendered over time.
This message was edited 3/21/2019, 9:04 PM