New Post
Search
HelpRe: Unisex names
in reply to a message by Jennifer27
I agree with one thing, and disagree with another:
I agree strongly that it's convention and actual usage that determines a name's gender or whether it indicates gender at all; your reaction to Kelly and Rowan from personal experience is a good example. Kelly and Rowan are now essentially unisex, because the widely accepted convention that they indicate gender is not there. I will accept whatever is conventional; the problem I have is with conventions changing -- it's not just that I am conservative, but because, as you say, it's confusing, among other things. It's not an absolute negative in the end, but during the time of changes -- like now with Rowan, Ryan, Rory -- it's less than good.
I disagree that we all need to accept that most names are now available to both sexes. All names are always theoretically available to all people. It is only the actual real life usage of traditionally male names on females that changes the convention. But there will always be some names for which the convention is, they indicate a male or a female. It's a useful, polite convention, it can give a certain social ease. People value sex and gender as part of identity. That's not going to change. Those who use unisex names don't value it enough to use names that can indicate it, but that doesn't mean that name genders are all now in fact meaningless.
I don't think it really compares exactly with ethnicity - because although one's ethnicity can be blurred by mixed ancestry and geographical history, one's sex cannot be blurred.. only one's gender. That's not a bad thing in itself, except when it's only acceptable to "add" masculine to feminine, but not to "adulterate" masculine with feminine -- which seems to be the trend.
- chazda
I agree strongly that it's convention and actual usage that determines a name's gender or whether it indicates gender at all; your reaction to Kelly and Rowan from personal experience is a good example. Kelly and Rowan are now essentially unisex, because the widely accepted convention that they indicate gender is not there. I will accept whatever is conventional; the problem I have is with conventions changing -- it's not just that I am conservative, but because, as you say, it's confusing, among other things. It's not an absolute negative in the end, but during the time of changes -- like now with Rowan, Ryan, Rory -- it's less than good.
I disagree that we all need to accept that most names are now available to both sexes. All names are always theoretically available to all people. It is only the actual real life usage of traditionally male names on females that changes the convention. But there will always be some names for which the convention is, they indicate a male or a female. It's a useful, polite convention, it can give a certain social ease. People value sex and gender as part of identity. That's not going to change. Those who use unisex names don't value it enough to use names that can indicate it, but that doesn't mean that name genders are all now in fact meaningless.
I don't think it really compares exactly with ethnicity - because although one's ethnicity can be blurred by mixed ancestry and geographical history, one's sex cannot be blurred.. only one's gender. That's not a bad thing in itself, except when it's only acceptable to "add" masculine to feminine, but not to "adulterate" masculine with feminine -- which seems to be the trend.
- chazda
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1