Update on Baby Boy K!stler, Brother to J@ck: Rowdy?

Update (and photo) on Baby Girl Suchinz-with-an-H, Sister to R0bert (H@ll)

Update on Middle Name Challenge: Baby Boy Henry ______ Myth-with-an-S

Hi Swistle!

I wrote to you many years ago about choosing a baby name and now I need some help for myself! No need to alter details unless you think it is necessary.

My divorce will be final later this summer and I am struggling. I married in my very early 20s and changed my name, and that marriage only lasted a year and a half. Prior to my second marriage I insisted I would never change my name but in the end my spouse made some very compelling arguments as to why it was more important to him that I change my name then it was to me that I keep it.

For context, I am estranged from my mother, who is my only living parent. My father died when I was in my mid-20s. For further context, my ex came out as transgender and is pursuing transition. We are on extremely good terms and have three children together.

I already know that I do not want to keep my married name. But I don’t want to go back to my maiden name. I likewise feel ambivalent about choosing a random new last name. I wouldn’t say that I am opposed to it but it doesn’t resonate with me fully. I am fairly certain that in the future were I to get married again I would not want to change my name, though I certainly would be happy to go by my spouses last name in social situations. I am done having children so that is no longer a consideration for future marriages.

Like most good 70s babies my middle name is Lynn. For various reasons, I actually changed my Facebook name to be Michelle Lynn years ago. As a joke I commented to my boyfriend that perhaps I would just change my name officially to Michelle Lynn and that actually resonated with me. I’ve been Michelle Lynn my whole life, despite any last name changes, and I like the way it flows.

Here’s where I am looking for some input. Is it weird to have no middle name? Should I add a middle name? It feels so wide-open that I’m not even sure where to start. And, what do you think about the last name? Is it worth picking a new last name that I will hopefully grow into or should I stick with my current plan of dropping the last name and making my middle name my last name?

Thank you for your help if this makes it to the blog! I’d also love to hear from other readers what they may have done or heard about in their travels.

Michelle

Oh, this is so interesting/fun to think about.

Upsides of Michelle Lynn: (1) Both names are your birth names, so there is the “returning to maiden name”/”not carrying any spouse’s name” kind of vibe, while also neatly avoiding your birth surname, which you’re not keen to return to. (2) Lynn is also an established surname. (3) This solution resonates with you.

Downside of Michelle Lynn: I’m familiar with the idea of women using their first/middle as their online/stage pseudonym, and so to me it has a pseudonym feeling. (But again: Lynn IS a real surname, so I think we could disregard that Feeling.)

The “add a middle name or no?” issue is fun because it is so low-stakes: I think you can do exactly as you’d prefer, with no large consequence either way. It’s a little odd/unusual in the U.S. not to have a middle name, but I know at least one person without one, and she hasn’t felt it as a huge lack in her life. For me, the issue would be that it could invite occasional comment, and THAT would lead to a discussion I wouldn’t want to have (“Oh, that’s odd—why didn’t your parents give you one?” “Well, they DID, but…”).

Plus, I’d think it could be QUITE FUN to CHOOSE one! You could choose a name that honors someone (first name or surname of a family member, an artist, an author, a politician, a poet, a scientist, etc.), or you could choose a name with a connection to your kids, or you could choose a surname further back in your family tree, or you could choose a name you WISHED was yours when you were a child (in elementary school I wanted so badly to have been named Stephanie), or or or! So many fun options! But if it seems overwhelming rather than fun, I also think you could skip it entirely.

If you decide you’d rather keep Lynn as your middle and choose a different surname, I think I would start by investigating Positive Family Connections. You are estranged from your mother; are there other relatives you are close to? I’m thinking along the lines of using a beloved grandmother’s maiden name, that kind of thing: any surname that could just as legitimately have been yours, if previous generations had made different decisions about which spouse’s surname to use.

I’ll be very interested to hear what other people think they’d do in this situation, and/or examples we’ve encountered in the field.

Hi Swistle,

I know you sometimes use your baby name blog to have discussions, which I always enjoy. I was thinking recently that it might be fun to have a post on real-life examples of name popularity not playing out as expected. I’m specifically thinking about times when a rare name turned out to be not-so-rare in a particular social circle, but it could also be interesting to hear about the opposite (cases where a child has a name that you know from Social Security stats is very popular and yet said child has ended up being the only person in school/town/etc. with that name). I know people who write to you for advice are often very concerned with the impact of a name’s popularity (myself included!), so it would be fun to hear some examples of how popularity plays out unexpectedly in the real world.

The thing that brought this to mind for me recently is my daughter’s preschool class. There are only 9 children in the class and two are named Emilia, spelled like that, with an E instead of an A. I’m wondering whether one or both Emilias’ parents specifically used that spelling because they were concerned about the popularity of Amelia. And now here they are, with two Emilia-With-An-“E”s.

I’m also thinking about my other daughter’s preschool class, which had 4 boys in it, two of whom were named Gary. I never would have imagined that I’d meet one 3-year-old Gary, much less two in the same very small preschool. The boys loved being “The Garys” and it was so cute, but I know the moms were very surprised that their boys had to be Gary Last Initial.

Anyway, I think it could be fun to hear more examples along those lines.

~Ashley

Oh, I AGREE!!

One type of story I am hoping we can avoid is the “We used Isabella in 2002 when NO ONE was using it, and then it got SO popular and now she’s always Isabella M.!” We all know about the phenomenon of noticing something everywhere AFTER it becomes significant to us. And we all know how common it is for parents, especially first-time parents, to use a name with no idea how common it is, for various perfectly understandable reasons (not knowing any babies yet; not thinking to look it up on the Social Security site and/or not knowing that information even exists; etc.). And we all know how name popularity can swoop up abruptly/unexpectedly as everyone seemingly discovers a name at the same time. Those stories, while worth telling, are not what we’re looking for today.

What we are looking for today is stories where there was an interesting difference between a name’s national/statistical popularity and its local/specific usage. Two Garys in one class, as Ashley mentions, or two Emilias. Two families both attempting to avoid the popularity of Isabella by both choosing Isadora, and the two Isadoras end up in the same classroom (with no Isabellas). Three Joeys in the same classroom, and two of them have the same middle name. Giving up on favorite name Olivia because it is too common, and using second-favorite Stella instead, and then there are two Stellas in that grade and no Olivias. Using the name John because it’s an important namesake name but feeling a little sad because it is just SO POPULAR, and then there isn’t a single other John in the entire school system. Etc.

Oh! And let’s talk about a vocab issue, before we get started: sometimes the word “class” can refer to a classroom, and sometimes to a whole grade, i.e. graduating class. I suggest we use the terms “classroom,” and “graduating class” or “grade.” (And of course if you happen to know the number of people in the classroom/grade, that is very good/fun to know, too.)

Update on Baby Boy Whit-with-an-E, Brother to F!nley

Hi Swistle,

My husband and I just found out that we are having a second daughter, who will be our last child. Our first-born daughter’s name is Margot, which we picked easily because it is so classy, fun, and distinctive all wrapped into one. Problem is, we’re having a hard time finding another girl name that “fits” with such a strong and standalone name such as Margot.

We do have a #1 contender, which is Norah. We both love the name and prefer it with the H since it feels stronger and more distinctive to us that way. Margot and Norah are both names that end with silent letters, which I can’t tell if it helps them “fit” (and they can bond over their silent letters and misspellings) or if it is just overkill and looks like a bit much when they’re written out together. However, I don’t think either of us want to spell it Nora just for this reason.

I had originally written off Norah as an option because Margot and Norah sound a little funny to me together, as if they are too similar. Both names hinge on the central R letter, and have the same “oh” and “ah” sounds, just reversed. My concern is that they are just not unique enough from each other. And yelling them at a distance could be hard to tell them apart (however important or not important that is). Then again I know plenty of families of little girls with the same “-ia” or “-ie” or “-en” endings and no one seems to notice that much. (I do know of an Ella and Nell sister pair, which is way too similar for my taste!)

We’ve run through lists of girl names but nothing else feels particularly right, which is how I came back around on Norah. My husband has a huge, close family so there are a few names I would definitely consider if we didn’t already have close cousins with them:
Eloise
Eliza
Avery

I have also always liked the name Ellie (big el theme) but we prefer to just give our child a standalone name without a nickname and I’m not sure I can get over how cutesy Ellie is on its own. My husband is not a fan for this reason. We also both don’t particularly like the very trendy “-ia” endings for girls that have been in the top ten for awhile now. It would be cool to find a name that starts with a Z (distinct!), but Zoe(y) is out (it is the name of friends and former dogs of both of ours) and the other Z names feel too far afield.

So… alternative suggestions to Norah, and/or thoughts on Margot and Norah together? I’m torn. We know for sure her middle name will be Logan (family name) and we do really like how Norah Logan sounds.

Thank you for any help!
-K

If I encountered sisters named Margot and Norah, I wouldn’t think anything was odd about the combination, or worry the names would be confused when hollered; and I wouldn’t even notice the other things you mention about letters and vowels. I would only think what nice names they were, and that they were a nice sibling pairing. I think it’s only when we look very carefully at names, as many of us do before making our final decision, that we notice all these little things—but you’ve dug thoroughly and well, and I don’t think you’ve found anything that rules out the name, or even makes it an awkward choice. I think once you use the name, all of those issues will recede far into the distance.

So, clearly I think you can/should/will use the name Norah. If for whatever reason you DON’T use it, or if it would help to just talk about names a little bit, I will say a few names that occurred to me as I was reading the letter:

Fiona; Margot and Fiona.

Simone; Margot and Simone.

Celeste; Margot and Celeste.

Lydia; Margot and Lydia.

Vivian; Margot and Vivian.

Winifred; Margot and Winifred.

Hi Swistle,

My spouse and I are expecting a baby in late May or early June 2022. We plan to have this be our only child.

We need specifically a gender neutral (or as gender neutral as possible) name. We know the sex of the baby, but it’s not a factor in our naming.

We have some overlap with naming in that we’re both a bit offbeat, like nature names, bohemian names, and Celtic names (heritage we both share). The baby’s surname will be Myers-Phillips.

We also have some very particular rules. The name must be:
Pronounceable and spellable in USA English
Not ranked in the top 100 — ideally unique, but not unheard of
Not just a nickname (e.g. Max without the Maxwell full name)
1-3 syllables, 2 is ideal
No unique spellings of existing names (e.g. Jaxon)
Not generally associated with anything cultural that will make us seem like superfans (e.g. Arwyn is strongly associated with Lord of the Rings)

Some names we liked but rejected are:
Briar (rhymes with Myers)
Aspen (sounds too much like ass, probably too feminine)
Remy (associated with guns and animated rats)
Kai (appropriative of Hawaiian culture)
Charlie (it’s a nickname not a full name)
Rue (the non-botanical meaning, regret, feels too sad for a baby)
Jules (nickname)
Kit (nickname)
Rowan (already taken by a couple people close to us)
Arrow (too offbeat we think?)

Whew! All that said, we do have a couple names that we’re still considering, but might not be exactly right.
River. We both like this name but we’re afraid it’s becoming too common and losing its “shine” if you will.
Larkin. We like this and the nickname Lark, but worry from people’s reactions that it’s actually ugly.
Thanks, we need help!

M & J

I think this is the very first time we’ve had this question in this way. I read the email with trepidation, worried you would tell us the sex of the baby and skew our response—and you did not! I wish you did not know, either, since it seems as if knowing just HAS TO affect the naming process. I have a cousin who wanted gender-neutral names, and what they did with each pregnancy was deliberately NOT find out the sex of the baby before birth, and chose one name to give the child regardless. It struck me as a good way to be really, really sure the sex of the baby was not affecting the choice. Well, no putting that knowledge back in the box at this point, of course! I mention it only for the sake of other parents who might be looking for a similar type of name, and may want to consider using that method.

I was thinking about this letter while making dinner, and some of the kids were around, so I mentioned it to them, and it led to a pretty fun discussion. The biggest thing I took away from it was something Elizabeth said (referring to some of the names you mentioned and also to some of the ones we came up with): she kept saying “That name is only ‘gender-neutral’ for [girls/boys].” The first one she said this about was the name Charlie: “That name is only ‘gender-neutral’ for girls.” That is, if we encounter a little boy named Charlie, we don’t think “Oh, what a great gender-neutral name!”; if we encounter a little girl named Charlie, we might think that very thing.

I realize this sounds like it doesn’t make sense (in large part due to the use of “gender-neutral” in an overly casual way, and as if it’s in quotes each time), but it came back to my mind again and again as a useful filter for name candidates. Certain names are USED for both boys and girls, but they have CROSSED in one direction—almost always when a name “for boys” starts to be used for girls. Such a name on a boy still seems like “a boy name”; the change is that it also feels usable for a girl, in a way we might call gender-neutral, but it isn’t: when we call a girl Sam or Max or Charlie, part of the package deal of that name is that we know it’s “boyish;” when we call a boy Sam or Max or Charlie, we are not similarly thinking the name is “girlish.” Sam is not “gender-neutral” for a boy; Sam is only “gender-neutral” for a girl. Max is not “gender-neutral” for a boy; Max is only “gender-neutral” for a girl. Do you see what I mean? I am describing this a little more than I might normally, just because I want it clear that everyone involved in the conversation was aware of the looseness/casualness of our word usage. It was a useful shorthand for us to say what we meant, even though we were being loose/casual (and therefore not fully accurate) with the term.

For a name to be true gender-neutral, I think we would have to see the name and not be able to guess if the person were a boy or a girl, and not feel surprise either way. There are not very many names like this—and individual experience is going to affect it to some extent, particularly because you are looking for unusual names many of us may not have had much real-life experience with. For example, some of us are going to think of Casey as a gender-neutral name, because we will have known male and female Caseys (I graduated high school with one male and one female Casey, and those were the only Caseys I’d known, so the name was established for me as very neutral), but maybe others of us have only known male Caseys, or don’t know ANY Caseys and only know it from Casey at the Bat, and would think of it as VERY boy, and be surprised to see it on a girl. In my kids’ particular school/classes, there are about as many boy Averys as girl Averys, and only a couple of each: if I saw the name Avery, I would not be able to guess and would not be surprised either way; but people in different circles or with younger kids might feel pretty confident guessing a baby Avery was a girl, now that the name has risen dramatically in popularity for girls while staying at about the same not-very-common level for boys.

And of course spelling can play a huge role. Elizabeth wrote “Bertie/Birdie!” on the list, with enthusiasm. But to me, Bertie is boy (even though I knew a Roberta/Bertie/Bert growing up—but that felt like Samantha/Sam or Charlotte/Charlie to me: boyish nickname), Birdie is girl. Similarly, I wanted to add Lee to the list—but then realized that, while I wouldn’t be VERY surprised to find a girl Lee, I would EXPECT a Lee to be a boy; I would expect a Leigh to be a girl. Cameron seems gender-neutral to me: I wouldn’t be able to guess, and I wouldn’t be surprised either way; but if there were a K or a Y in the spelling, I’d guess girl and be surprised if boy—even though I know some boy babies are given spellings with K’s and Y’s.

Well. It’s a delightful puzzle. I do think you’d be wise to see if you could loosen your other rules as much as you possibly can, given what a very small pool of names you’ll be working with. You’ve already eliminated ALMOST ALL of the names by wanting something gender-neutral; if you then eliminate names of a certain level of popularity, and names with certain numbers of syllables and so forth, you might end up eliminating ALL the names—or leaving yourself with only names you don’t like very much. I recommend starting with the list “Gender-Neutral Names We Like,” without regard for popularity/syllables/etc., and even including names you’re sure you won’t use (those can still be useful for noticing sounds/styles you’re drawn to), in order to get the biggest, happiest, heartiest possible pile to choose from and work with. Later you can use the other rules/preferences to make finer decisions.

I think River is a pretty good option. Seeing the name, I would not know if the person were male or female, and I would not be surprised either way. In 2020 in the United States (the 2021 data will likely be out in May), the Social Security Administration reports that the name River was #129 for boys (2,771 new baby boys in 2020), and #186 for girls (1,540 new baby girls in 2020). Usage is rising for both boys and girls, which surprised me; I don’t have anyone named River in my circle, which made me feel incorrectly as if the name were very unusual.

I don’t think the name Larkin is ugly, but of course that’s going to be a very subjective thing. I think it has some strong consonant sounds, and it’s uncommon (in 2020, it was given to 85 new baby girls and 46 new baby boys); those two things combined might be causing a reaction. I think once everyone got used to it, the reaction would stop. The name Larkin is not in the Top 1000 for either girls or boys in the United States; I would have added “and never has been,” except that in 1903, 1905, and 1909, it brushed briefly into that range for boys. (Which is a little bit interesting, because the name Larkin was #822 for boys in 1903, then out of the Top 1000 in 1904, then back at #728 in 1905; I suspect this is mostly because of low/unreliable data from that time period. In 1903, there were 9 boys named Larkin; all we know about 1904 is that there were 4 or fewer; in 1905 there were 12. Currently, with more/better data, the #822 boy name in the U.S. was used for 278 babies; the #728 boy name in the U.S. was used for 335 babies; a name used for only 9 or 12 babies would be nowhere near the Top 1000.)

I’m trying to think what I would have thought if I’d encountered a Larkin before working on this post. I think I would have assumed girl, because I would have thought the parents were going for the nickname Lark, which strikes me as feminine even though there is no particular reason it should be. I would be a little surprised to find the name belonged to a boy, but not shocked or anything. I would be quite a bit more surprised if I heard the name Lark and then found it belonged to a boy. If I encountered the name Lark on a girl, it would not seem gender-neutral to me.

I’d like to reclaim Jules from the rejected list. While I do know it can be used as a nickname, I see it as much more of a given name than, say, Sam or Max, which can ALSO be given names but I see them more as nicknames. Again, this is all so subjective. But I think of Jules as a real standard given name, probably almost entirely because of Jules Verne. If I encountered a Jules on a class Valentine’s list, I would not know if the child were a boy or a girl. If I heard it as a nickname, I would be more likely to think girl, but that’s because there are so many more Julias/Julies in my own age group, so I’m accustomed to Jules as the kind of pet name that would be spoken but not written on a homework paper / class list.

Let’s see if we can think of some more options to consider.

The names Remy and Rowan made me think of Rory, Rudy, Finley, and Reece.

I am more familiar with Rory as a name for girls, but only because of the television series Gilmore Girls; other than that, I am aware of it as a unisex name. In 2020 in the U.S., the name Rory was given to 670 new baby girls and 989 new baby boys.

I would have thought of Rudy as a name used for boys, except for Rudy on The Cosby Show (her name was short for Rudith, something I didn’t know until just now when I looked it up). In 2020 in the U.S., the name Rudy was given to 16 new baby girls and 261 new baby boys. Hm. So perhaps this falls into “It’s only ‘gender-neutral’ for girls” territory.

In 2020 in the U.S., the name Finley was given to 1,429 new baby girls and 1,080 new baby boys. For me, part of the appeal of the name is that the first half leans “boy” but the second half leans “girl.” If I encountered a Finley on a classroom list, I would not know whether to guess boy or girl and would need to be told; I would not be surprised either way.

Reece is a little trickier, because Rhys and Reese will be affecting our impressions as well. Rhys is “the boy spelling,” used in the U.S. in 2020 for 38 new baby girls and 702 new baby boys. Reese is more “the girl spelling,” used for 1,867 new baby girls and 334 boys. Reece is closest to unisex: 137 new baby girls and 469 new baby boys. If I saw a Rhys on a class list, I would assume boy and be surprised by girl; if I saw Reece or Reese, I would not be able to guess and would not be surprised by whatever the answer.

Charlie from the rejected list, combined with finding Casey listed for both girls and boys in the Celtic names section of  The Baby Name Wizard, makes me want to push for Casey. In 2020 in the U.S., the name Casey was given to 230 new baby girls and 541 new baby boys.

Emlyn is also listed for both girls and boys in the Celtic section. In 2020 in the U.S., the name Emlyn was given to 25 new baby girls; it is not in that year’s database for boys. I suspect in the U.S., the Em + lyn combination reads almost completely “girl.”

Oh, and Morgan! In 2020 in the U.S., the name Morgan was given to 1,483 new baby girls and 363 new baby boys.

The names Briar and Aspen sent me down the nature name path, and I wondered about Linden—which seems like a softer alternative to Larkin. I probably would guess girl, though, especially after Laura morphed to Laurie and then to Lauren: it would seem to me as if someone was doing the same with the name Linda, even though I also know the nature origin of the name. But Lyndon Johnson makes the name familiar for boys. And the nickname Denny/Dennie, because I happen to know a GIRL Dennie, feels potentially unisex to me.

Kit made me think of Quinn, even though that’s a very different style. In 2020 in the U.S. the name Quinn was given to 3,058 new baby girls and 669 new baby boys.

Hollis and Ellis are two names that come to my mind when I’m looking for unisex names—though because of the potential nicknames Holly and Ellie, they come to my mind more when I’m looking for less-feminine names for girls. In 2020 in the U.S., the name Hollis was given to 145 new baby girls and 199 new baby boys; the name Ellis was given to 463 new baby girls and 1,004 new baby boys. That is a lot of -s endings, though, with the surname!

Maybe Lane? Not quite naturey, but at least outdoors. The nickname Lanie feels feminine, but my first encounter with the name Lane was in the movie Better Off Dead, where Lane is a cute boy (in fact, his name is Lane Meyer, which may rule it out for this baby), so that lodged the name in my mind as unisex. In 2020 in the U.S., the name Lane was given to 103 new baby girls and 1,360 new baby boys.

I know you said you’d prefer not to have nickname names, and I do hear you, and I too generally prefer to avoid nickname names—but I also wonder if those could be the solution to the puzzle, particularly the ones not currently used for new babies. Terry, for example: I have known boy Terrys and girl Terrys. Seeing it on a class list, I would not know if the child were a boy or a girl, and I would not be surprised either way. But I WOULD be charmed to see that name on a current child. And it doesn’t feel like “a nickname name” to me the way more current nicknames (Max, etc.) do—probably because in the age group where I’m familiar with Terrys, that was the era when people were called almost exclusively by their nicknames. So “Terry” feels less like a nickname for Terrance/Theresa, and more like just Their Name.

Name update:

Thank you Swistle and the comment section for your help picking a name!

In the end, we stuck with our 2 top names going to the hospital, levied by yours and your readers’ approval of both the names River and Larkin. We decided we would wait til we met the baby at the hospital to choose, based on their face/vibe/birth. And we chose Larkin! Born 6/7/22.

We were encouraged by your analysis that Lark and Larkin were somewhat gender-ambiguous and not necessarily ugly. We’re looking forward to when Larkin can identify their gender themself and not be hindered by our name choice.

Thanks again!

Update (and photo) on Baby Boy Slickter, Brother to Eden

Update on Baby Girl W00let, Sister to Eleanor/Ellie and Zachary/Zach