TL;DR
Get the little things that make your day delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
An analysis by NameDaisy of US Social Security Administration baby-name records from 1936 to 2025 found 42 names shifted from mostly boys to mostly girls, while 12 moved in the opposite direction. The report says girls’ name use was the main driver in most shifts in both directions, though it does not establish why families chose those names.
A NameDaisy analysis of US Social Security Administration baby-name records from 1936 to 2025 found that 42 names shifted from mostly boys to mostly girls, while 12 moved from mostly girls to mostly boys. The report tracks how names crossed that threshold over time, offering a picture of changing naming patterns rather than an explanation of individual families’ choices.
NameDaisy examined 125 names whose use among boys and girls changed noticeably. It classed 54 as switches under its stricter definition: 42 moved from mostly male use to mostly female use, and 12 shifted in the other direction. The analysis groups births into consecutive five-year periods and uses the share of babies recorded as girls for each name to show how usage changed.
The report says the most common route toward female use was not simply more boys receiving a name less often. Of the 42 names that shifted toward girls, 34 were driven mainly by increased use among girls. For the 12 names that shifted toward boys, nine were driven mainly by a decline in use among girls, rather than a rise among boys.
Kelly illustrates the first pattern. NameDaisy reports that its use among girls rose sharply in the late 1950s, when the name crossed into majority-female use. In the 1956–1960 period, it was given to 220 girls per 100,000 girls, compared with 1.5 per 100,000 in 1936–1940. The report says Kelly also became more common among boys, but to a much smaller degree.
How Names Crossed the Divide
The findings show that a name’s gender association can change through different patterns of use. NameDaisy’s counts indicate that movement toward girls often coincided with rising popularity among girls, while several shifts toward boys came after a name had become far less common among girls. That distinction helps explain how a name can become majority-male without a large increase in boys receiving it.
The report also cautions against treating a “switch” as the only outcome. Some names became more evenly shared, and others changed direction more than once. Names such as Charlie and Blake are described as having moved from mostly male use toward a more even split, while names including Jamie and Robin shifted direction over time. The figures describe recorded naming patterns; they do not by themselves explain cultural motivations or predict future choices.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Over-Ear Noise-Cancelling Headphones, Hazelnut Taupe
Dreame G10 Pro Wet and Dry Vacuum Mop
Dreame H12 Pro Wet and Dry Vacuum Mop
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Records Behind the Trends
NameDaisy says its analysis uses the Social Security Administration’s national baby-name files and starts in 1936 because earlier records are less complete. The data cover births through 2025, organized into five-year blocks. For each name and period, the report calculates the proportion of babies recorded as girls among all babies given that name.
The report tracks more than clear switches. Its 125-name chart groups names by whether they moved toward girls, moved toward boys, became more shared, or changed direction. It says 57 names moved toward girls and 16 toward boys in the broader chart categories; those totals differ from the 42 and 12 because the narrower switch count requires a move from mostly one sex to mostly the other. Periods with too few recorded births are marked as insufficient for a reliable comparison.
The timing of shifts also varied. NameDaisy reports that 32 of the 42 shifts toward girls happened during a five-year period when the name reached a new high in its use. Only two of the 12 shifts toward boys occurred at a new high. Some, including Jan, Jean, Joan, Jody and Dominique, crossed toward male-majority use after their popularity had fallen substantially.
What the Name Counts Cannot Show
The analysis establishes changes in the recorded distribution of names, but it does not identify why parents chose a name or what social influences shaped each shift. It also does not show how people who bear those names identify; the report measures birth records by sex recorded in the source data, not later identity or personal preference.
NameDaisy’s figures depend on its definitions of a switch and on the availability of records in each period. The report notes that some periods have too few births for a reliable comparison. Its results describe the names it selected for analysis and should not be read as a count of every name that has ever been used across genders.
Further Name Histories to Track
NameDaisy presents interactive charts that let readers follow individual names across the five-year periods and compare recorded use among boys and girls. The report does not announce a future research release or forecast which names may shift next. Any new conclusions would require later birth records and the same care in distinguishing a genuine majority shift from a change driven by small numbers.
Key Questions
How many names shifted from mostly boys to mostly girls?
NameDaisy found that 42 names crossed from mostly male use to mostly female use under its stricter definition, using US records from 1936 to 2025.
How many names shifted from mostly girls to mostly boys?
The analysis counted 12 names moving from mostly female use to mostly male use under the same definition.
What caused most of the shifts?
The report measures changes in usage, not parents’ reasons. It says 34 of the 42 shifts toward girls were driven mainly by increased use among girls, while nine of the 12 shifts toward boys were driven mainly by declining use among girls.
Which records did the report use?
NameDaisy says it used Social Security Administration national baby-name files covering 1936–2025. It grouped births into consecutive five-year periods because earlier records were less complete.
Source: namedaisy.com
