Latest Posts



Twitter Feed

The Unisex Name Myth

October 8, 2020 laurawattenberg 12 Comments

The Unisex Name Myth

October 8, 2020 LauraWattenberg 12 Comments
Image of unisex symbol + question mark

Is there a unisex style of baby names? Names that parents consistently choose without regard to gender, that are perceived in a gender-neutral way as a child goes through life?

We usually take the idea for granted. You can find thousands of lists of unisex name ideas, including one in my own Baby Name Wizard book. News headlines regularly trumpet that unisex naming is on the rise, based on the growing number of names appearing in popularity statistics for both boys and girls.

But it may be that we’re all wrong. A closer look at historical name statistics suggests that the unisex name style is an illusion: it simply doesn’t exist.

What is a Unisex Name?
More American babies receive a name that is given to both boys and girls than ever before. The rate has doubled since the 1950s. Yet that alone doesn’t mean that any names are unisex in a meaningful, ongoing way.

Perhaps we’ve just caught some of the names in mid-transition from one gender column to the other. That was the case with Lindsay in the early 1970s, briefly unisex on its path from uncommon boy’s name to popular girl’s name. Perhaps other names are still new and public opinion hasn’t yet settled on gender identifications for them—but soon will. That was the case with Jayden in the mid-1990s. Today, male Jaydens outpace female Jaydens 40:1. Or perhaps some names are just fleeting trends that will disappear before fashion has a chance to pin them down.

In each case, the unisex impression comes from looking at a single frame of a moving picture. Blink, and it’s gone. The reverse would be names that retain unisex usage and style across a moving lifetime, and those turn out to be remarkably hard to find.

The Hunt for Consistently Unisex Names
3000 names have remained in steady usage for American boys or girls from 1950 to today. Steady, in this case, means just five or more boys or girls born each year. It’s a low bar, one easily cleared by names as uncommon as Irish for girls and Serafin for boys. Of those thousands of names, only two have been consistently unisex at a ratio no greater than 3:1 in either direction: Marion and Jessie.

Marion has achieved the feat largely via neglect. The name was once popular and skewed heavily female, but it has dwindled out of use. Marion hasn’t cracked the top 1000 for boys or girls since the 20th Century, and its lingering unisex status mostly reflects the fact that parents of girls abandoned the name faster than parents of boys.

Jessie, meanwhile, is notable for being fundamentally different in male and female usage. For girls, Jessie is a nickname for Jessica. For boys, it’s an alternate spelling of the biblical name Jesse. That the two names coincide is, well, coincidence.

That’s it. That’s the entire list of reliably unisex names since 1950. Does that seem like a style to you?

A Look at Unisex Flux in Action
Zooming in on the contemporary era gives us a clearer look at how names change. Of the names that were at least modestly common and unisex in usage 20 years ago, about a third still fit that description today. In other words, a parent who chose an apparently unisex name in 2000 had a one in three chance of that name still being what they thought they were getting by the time their child hit age 20.

The reasons for individual names staying unisex, veering toward single-sex, or simply disappearing are as diverse as the names themselves. The names Ali and Angel, for instance, were pronounced and used differently for males and females, representing different cultures. The girls’ versions have fallen out of style, so the names now skew heavily male. Bailey and Riley were captured by the force that pulls -y surnames toward the girls’ side, following in the path of Lindsay, Tracy, and many more. Ashton’s usage turned strongly male thanks to celebrity Ashton Kutcher, while Kendall and Reese became more female thanks to Kendall Jenner and Reese Witherspoon. And the name Kelby is just plain gone.

The names from 2000 that have remained unisex include a number of contemporary word names and surnames, especially those like Phoenix and Armani that break from traditional English name forms. Nicknames like Frankie also show some staying power, because they can be derived from either male or female formal names. And then there are names like Jean and Robin that were once popular and strongly gendered, but have settled into a unisex “retirement.”

From the perspective of the year 2000, though, most of the trajectories were unpredictable. Consider that the formerly unisex names Quinn and Santana both became female cheerleader characters on the tv series Glee. But Quinn now skews strongly female, while Santana—despite its -a ending—is now mostly male. And what would have clued a parent of 2000 that Emerson and Rowan would continue unisex, while Payton and London would be female? Again, an actual unisex style proves elusive.

The Meaning of Today’s “Unisex Surge”
If “unisex names” are an illusory category, why do popularity statistics show that unisex naming is rising? The answer is that the seeming breakdown of gender barriers in naming is largely a side effect of a much broader shift. Over the past two generations, America has moved from a fundamentally traditional to a fundamentally creative approach to names. Parents eagerly seek novelty, originality and individuality in name choices. That novelty-seeking inevitably leads to a statistical rise in unisex usage, for the simple reason that newly created names have no pre-existing gender association.

Think of the names Phoenix and Armani. As a word/place name and designer surname without obvious gender indicators, they drew in parents of both boys and girls. But the decision to name children Phoenix and Armani rather than, say, James and Katherine is about much, much more than just gender roles. In fact, based on geographic usage patterns, the gender neutrality of creative names is not a major factor in their popularity at all.

Despite the country’s evolving ideas of gender, very few parents appear to choose names on a gender-neutral basis. Some parents of girls do deliberately seek androgynous or even masculine-sounding names, thinking they sound “stronger” or will give their daughters a competitive advantage in life. But the overwhelming majority of unisex names are chosen for a very simple reason: the parents think that particular name sounds cool. And in their minds, it fits the gender of their child.

A Shift in Thinking
It may seem like splitting hairs to argue whether changes in naming patterns amount to a “unisex style.” But the answer has consequences, both for baby-naming parents and for our understanding of our society.

If names do not stay unisex, if we cannot predict a name’s future gender balance, then every list of “25 Cool Unisex Names” is deeply misleading. Most likely, it’s actually a list of names with rapidly shifting usage. That’s no small difference to any parent who genuinely seeks a lifetime gender-free name for a child.

More broadly, headlines about American naming becoming unisex are misleading about America. They suggest a rapid evolution in attitudes, an arrival of “post-gender” thinking that simply isn’t in evidence in the name data.

It is still unheard of for boys to be given traditionally feminine names. (Imagine a girl being named James vs. a boy named Katherine.) The classically feminine -a ending is still the most popular for girls’ names, by a mile. In the realm of contemporary names, many newly created word names show exaggerated gender disparities. Words with aggressive, powerful meanings are chosen as boys’ names and pretty, cheerful meanings are chosen for girls.

In short, America’s naming impulses remain highly gender specific. Headlines about names turning unisex obscure that reality.  And the idea of a unisex name is still mostly illusion.


Namerology founder and "Baby Name Wizard" author Laura Wattenberg is a globally recognized name expert, known for her scientific approach to understanding name trends and culture.

All posts


  • Kathy Linn October 8, 2020 at 5:41 pm

    How about Alex?

    • Namerology
      Namerology October 8, 2020 at 6:01 pm

      While Alex is often considered a “unisex nickname,” it’s predominantly male. Alexanders far outnumber Alexandras and are more likely to go by Alex. And as a given name, this is the distribution:

      • Quiara
        Quiara October 9, 2020 at 12:38 am

        Sure, but there were just as many girls named Alexis as there were boys named Alexander at the turn of the millennium. Plugging in ALEX to the Baby Name Voyager suggests that added up, the incidence of Alex- names has been pretty close to 50/50 male/female since the 90s.

        • Namerology
          Namerology October 9, 2020 at 2:36 am

          True, though Lexi is the more common nickname for a female Alexis! But in the end I come back to what is measurable, which is Alex as a *given* name. The relationship of nicknames to traditional formal names is surprisingly complicated. Take Charlie, which has recently risen tremendously for both boys and girls and is equal in current usage. The popularity of the traditional male source Charles is totally flat, while Charlotte has exploded for girls. But, a MUCH higher percentage of boys named Charles go by Charlie than girls named Charlotte. And for an extra twist, “cute” alternate spellings like Charlee, Charli, and Charleigh together are MORE popular than Charlie for girls, and mostly a non-factor for boys.

  • Kerri October 8, 2020 at 6:49 pm

    I thought I remembered you writing about Taylor awhile back, as one of those rare names that’s still used equally for boys, or maybe it went back to the boys after being more popular for girls?

    • Rachel October 13, 2020 at 8:14 pm

      I was thinking about Taylor as well. It’s a name that (I think) has remained unisex for a few decades at least. Along the same lines, Jordan strikes me as a gender neutral name for multiple decades.

  • Marina October 8, 2020 at 8:15 pm

    This is such a brilliant piece of writing. Laura, you inspire me every day in my working life, to dig out the real story in the data, and tell the story clearly with a lightness of touch. I started reading your blog more than ten years ago as a young name geek, before I had ever had anything to do with data, and now it’s how I earn a living! I am constantly wowed and inspired by your work.

  • Sabrina October 10, 2020 at 9:12 pm

    Fascinating, thanks! I wonder what will happen with Elliott, a name that seems super hot with parents of both boys and girls (I know a baby girl Elliott, nn Ellie, and a baby boy Elliott.)

  • Aluna October 13, 2020 at 2:31 pm

    Interesting. Also it’s curious to see how america differs to the UK and Australia. In the UK for example, Riley and Bailey skew heavily in the masculine side.

  • Aluna October 13, 2020 at 2:40 pm

    I would love to actually study the UK phenomenon of it resisting the -y names being given mostly to girls. It seemed to be following in the US footsteps with unisex names ending in -y like Kelly, Stacey or Lindsay ending up being seen almost exclusively as girl names. But then something changed. And I believe where the US/UK split was with the name Ashley. The US would embrace it for girls, and the UK embraced it for boys. Since then, several -y names that lean female in the US, retained their masculine popularity in the UK. Finley, Presley, Harley, Riley, Aubrey, Bailey, Marley, Remy, Mackenzie, Rory, etc. Even newer names like Oakley are trending heavily to the male side unlike the US.

    • Namerology
      Namerology October 14, 2020 at 12:37 am

      That’s a really interesting point, Aluna. It fits with diminutive boys’ names like Tommy and Freddie being vastly more popular in the UK — the “ee” ending sound doesn’t seem to carry any gender association there. In fact, I just ran some rough stats and it looks like the combined -y and -ie numbers are pretty much equal for boys and girls.

  • Robin April 11, 2023 at 12:10 pm

    Robin is an odd one because it entirely depends on the country. When I travel outside of the US people always expect me to be a man if we’ve only communicated by email. Even my middle name doesn’t help, as it’s either a last name (where it comes from in my case) or a masculine-leaning unisex first name. In England, Robyn is considered the feminine form, and Robin is masculine. In Italy I straight up got laughed for having a man’s name. In many romance-language countries I now just introduce myself as “Robina” to avoid the awkward conversation. But in the US, it feels pretty unisex, yet Robyn still seems to be the preferred female spelling as people often spell my name that way unless I tell them otherwise.

  • Leave a Reply

    I accept the Privacy Policy