Message: "but..." - Behind the Name

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Opinions] but...

by Lily8

9/17/2008, 10:15 AM

Christian used to be a popular girls name in the Middle Ages. Nobody is complaining when people use Christian for a boy but everybody always complains when Madison or Mackenzie are used for girls. I dislike both Madison and Mackenzie and prefer them for boys. I just think it's annoying how people always say "it's a boys name" whenever people ask opinions on names such as Meredith and Madison. They originally were boys names, sure, but now they are unisex like it or not. Christian is not even listed as "masculine and feminine" anymore in the database.

This message was edited 9/17/2008, 10:19 AM

Replies

- Llewella (penguiny7) +2

9/17/2008, 12:19 PM

That's because...

Madison and Mackenzie mean "Son of..." This argument would be valid for any name that doesn't mean that.

- Tippins (blaaarg) +1

9/17/2008, 3:02 PM

I dunno

I have been thinking about this and realizing that any argument I have on this subject is disturbingly groundless.

David: beloved
Albert: noble and bright
Peter: stone

Nothing inherently feminine or masculine about them except for common use. What about these names on girls?

- Llewella (penguiny7)

9/17/2008, 7:43 PM

It would bother me to see those names on girls too. But at least you have the legitimate argument of a gender-neutral meaning. There's nothing gender-neutral about a name meaning son of someone though. So those names in particular bother me to see on girls.

View Message

Replies