New Post
Search
HelpCade for a girl?
I was reading the paper, bored at this time at night...and saw Cade for a girl. I assumed it was a boy until it stated otherwise. WDYT? Jade has made the switch...I figure its only time until boys have no names for themselves.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
There is a girl named Kayden in my son's preschool, her nickname is Kaydee. I would think it's going to be used for girls soon enough, with the nickname Cadie.
1
Maybe I misunderstood you, but are you saying you like Jade for a boy, or a girl, and you think it's more popular for one of the genders over the other?
1
LOL ... Of course boys will always have names, because their parents are going to have to call them *something*!!. They might have to swallow their pride and accept sharing these names with females, but c'est la vie.
Also, in the near future, girls are not going to be called Anthony, James or Robert. Well, one or two examples will arise, but then so will one or two examples of children named SatanSpawn and JellyBean ;-) The names that only have a couple of years' usage behind them are the ones with more flexible connotations, and the ones that people can picture on the opposite gender. For example, I've come across of a couple of little girls (American) named Killian. The name Killian is, historically, every bit as much as male as John. But I doubt their parents have met many - if any - male Killian's, and thefore they are going by sound alone because
I'm in the minority on BtN, but I think this change is OK. It only makes sense that gender lines are blurring in names, because they're doing so in everyday life. Borne by a male, Regan has the same history behind it; borne by a female, so does Tristan. But I wouldn't name my son Cordelia or my daughter Matthew, even though the principle is the same.
Sorry to go on a rant!
Elinor x
Also, in the near future, girls are not going to be called Anthony, James or Robert. Well, one or two examples will arise, but then so will one or two examples of children named SatanSpawn and JellyBean ;-) The names that only have a couple of years' usage behind them are the ones with more flexible connotations, and the ones that people can picture on the opposite gender. For example, I've come across of a couple of little girls (American) named Killian. The name Killian is, historically, every bit as much as male as John. But I doubt their parents have met many - if any - male Killian's, and thefore they are going by sound alone because
I'm in the minority on BtN, but I think this change is OK. It only makes sense that gender lines are blurring in names, because they're doing so in everyday life. Borne by a male, Regan has the same history behind it; borne by a female, so does Tristan. But I wouldn't name my son Cordelia or my daughter Matthew, even though the principle is the same.
Sorry to go on a rant!
Elinor x
1
Aaargh!! Finishing my second paragraph ...
"But I doubt their parents have met many - if any - male Killian's, and thefore they are going by sound alone because they have no connotations to go on. With John, the name is set in their mind as referring to a man, and being so common, it seems to refer almost generically to any man, making it very weird on a girl."
"But I doubt their parents have met many - if any - male Killian's, and thefore they are going by sound alone because they have no connotations to go on. With John, the name is set in their mind as referring to a man, and being so common, it seems to refer almost generically to any man, making it very weird on a girl."
1