Key Takeaway
Gender-neutral naming is growing faster than at any point in the SSA record. Names given to both genders at significant rates have increased from about 2% of all births in the 1960s to over 5% in recent years. The data also reveals a consistent asymmetry: names shift from male to female usage far more often than the reverse. Once a name is perceived as predominantly female, it rarely returns to male usage.
The One-Way Street: Male to Female
The most striking pattern in gender-neutral naming is its directionality. Names that begin as male and become shared between genders almost always end up predominantly female. The reverse — a female name becoming male — almost never happens in the SSA record.
Examples that illustrate the pattern:
- Ashley — 100% male usage until the 1960s. By the 1980s, it was predominantly female. By the 2000s, male usage was under 2%. It never returned.
- Lindsay/Lindsey — Overwhelmingly male through the 1960s. Female usage surged in the 1970s. By the 1990s, it was over 95% female.
- Courtney — Majority male through the 1960s. Female usage overtook male by the late 1970s. Now over 90% female.
- Avery — Historically male (think Avery Brooks). Shifted toward female in the 2000s. Now approximately 65% female and still shifting.
- Jordan — One of the rare names that has maintained relatively balanced usage for decades, hovering around 55-60% male since the 1990s.
Researchers attribute this to asymmetric social perception: using a traditionally female name for a boy is culturally penalized more heavily than using a traditionally male name for a girl. Once parents of boys begin avoiding a name because it is "becoming a girl's name," male usage drops rapidly, accelerating the shift. Search any of these names on NameAlmanac to see the gender split year by year.
The most genuinely even unisex names
Boys' share of births — 50% is a perfect split (each name has 20,000+ births per sex)
- Riley
Riley: 43% boys / 57% girls
43 % boys
- Casey
Casey: 60% boys / 40% girls
60 % boys
- Jackie
Jackie: 46% boys / 54% girls
46 % boys
- Jaime
Jaime: 59% boys / 41% girls
59 % boys
- Kerry
Kerry: 51% boys / 49% girls
51 % boys
- Quinn
Quinn: 42% boys / 58% girls
42 % boys
- Frankie
Frankie: 53% boys / 47% girls
53 % boys
- Harley
Harley: 57% boys / 43% girls
57 % boys
What this shows True 50/50 names are rarer than the 'unisex' label suggests — most lean one way. These few hold a near-even split across decades of real usage.
Categories of Gender-Neutral Names
Not all gender-neutral names arrive at that status the same way. The SSA data reveals several distinct patterns:
1. Names Born Neutral
Some names have been used for both genders since they entered the American record. These tend to be nature names (River, Sage, Sky), virtue names (Justice, Haven), or surname-derived names (Morgan, Taylor, Jordan). They may lean slightly one way but have never been strongly gendered. These are the most stable gender-neutral names because they lack a "this was a boy's/girl's name" history to create backlash.
2. Names in Transition
Names currently shifting from one gender to another. The transition typically takes 20-30 years from the first crossover to the point where the new gender becomes dominant. Current names in transition include Emery (historically male, now about 70% female), Rowan (historically male, now roughly 55-60% female), and Finley (male-origin, now approximately 55% female).
3. Names That Completed the Shift
These names were once gender-neutral but have completed their transition and are now overwhelmingly used for one gender. Ashley, Madison, Meredith, Whitney, and Kelly are examples — all historically male names that are now 90%+ female. Their gender-neutral phase lasted roughly one to two decades before tipping definitively.
4. Truly Balanced Names
A small number of names maintain close to 50/50 usage over extended periods. These are rare and tend to be short, phonetically simple names without strong gender markers in any cultural tradition. Current examples include Quinn (roughly 52% female), Charlie (roughly 55% female), and Hayden (roughly 55% male). Browse trending names to find the current gender split on any name.
The Growth Trend in Numbers
The SSA data shows a clear long-term increase in gender-neutral naming:
- 1960s: Roughly 2-3% of babies received names used for both genders at more than 20% each.
- 1980s: The figure rose to about 3-4%, driven by names like Jordan, Taylor, and Morgan crossing over.
- 2000s: Approximately 4-5%, with new entrants like Avery, Riley, and Quinn joining the list.
- 2020s: Over 5% and growing, with nature names (River, Sage, Rowan) and short-form names (Charlie, Emery, Finley) driving the expansion.
The growth is driven by three overlapping forces: changing attitudes about gender, the cultural influence of public figures who use gender-neutral names, and a general trend toward name diversity that weakens gendered naming conventions. Use NameAlmanac's decade-by-decade guide to see how naming conventions have shifted over time.
Choosing a Gender-Neutral Name: Practical Considerations
If you are considering a gender-neutral name, the SSA data can help you make an informed decision:
- Check the current gender split. A name that is 70/30 feels different from one that is 50/50. NameAlmanac shows the exact distribution so you know where any name falls on the spectrum.
- Look at the trend direction. If a name is currently 60% male but the female percentage is rising each year, the name is likely in transition and may be predominantly female within a decade. Consider whether this trajectory matters to you.
- Consider the "truly balanced" category. Names that have remained close to 50/50 for 10+ years (Quinn, Charlie) are less likely to tip dramatically in one direction than names currently in active transition.
- Think about pronunciation. The best gender-neutral names have no phonetic gender markers — they do not end in sounds strongly associated with one gender (like the "-a" ending that signals female in many cultures or the hard consonant endings associated with male names). Short, vowel-balanced names tend to read as most neutral.
Worked example: the male-to-female drift, four names
| Name | % female, 1980 | % female, 2000 | % female, 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashley | 45% | 94% | 98% |
| Madison | ~0% | 96% | 99% |
| Riley | 8% | 62% | 85% |
| Quinn | 12% | 38% | 75% |
"When a unisex name swings, it almost always swings from male to female — and almost never back again."
How NameAlmanac flags unisex names
A name is classified as unisex on NameAlmanac when the minority-sex variant has at least 5% of the dominant sex's total births. This 5% threshold prevents misclassifying strongly gendered names — for instance Liam, with a handful of female records, is not labeled unisex, while Riley, with substantial usage on both sides, is.
Keep reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes a name "gender-neutral" in the SSA data?
A name is gender-neutral when it appears in both the male and female SSA files with meaningful frequency. NameAlmanac shows the gender split for every name. Some names are nearly 50/50 (Avery, Riley); others are historically one-gender names that have shifted (Ashley was 100% male until the 1960s). There is no official threshold — NameAlmanac considers any name given to both genders at least 20% of the time in recent years as functionally gender-neutral.
Do gender-neutral names tend to shift toward one gender over time?
Yes, and the direction is remarkably consistent: names that become gender-neutral almost always shift from male to female, not the reverse. Once a name is perceived as predominantly female, male usage drops sharply and rarely recovers. This pattern — documented by researchers like Cleveland Kent Evans and Laura Wattenberg — has held for over a century. Examples: Ashley (male → female by 1980s), Lindsay (male → female by 1970s), Courtney (male → female by 1980s). The reverse shift — a female name becoming male — is extremely rare in the SSA record.
Are parents choosing gender-neutral names more often now?
Yes. The share of babies receiving names used for both genders has increased steadily since the mid-2000s. Names like Charlie, Rowan, Emery, Finley, Sage, and River are given to both boys and girls at significant rates. This reflects broader cultural trends in gender expression and a growing preference among parents for names that do not constrain their child to gendered expectations. The trend is strongest in coastal urban areas and among college-educated parents.
Which are the most popular gender-neutral names right now?
Based on recent SSA data, the most common names given in roughly equal proportions to both genders include: Avery, Riley, Jordan, Quinn, Charlie, Rowan, Emery, Sage, Finley, River, Hayden, and Reese. However, "roughly equal" is a spectrum — some of these lean 60/40 in one direction. NameAlmanac shows the exact gender split for any name you search, so you can decide where your comfort zone falls on the spectrum between fully neutral and slightly leaning.
Do gender-neutral names affect how a child is perceived?
Research is mixed and evolving. Some studies have found that gender-ambiguous names on resumes can reduce gender-based bias in initial screening (because reviewers cannot easily apply gender stereotypes). Other studies suggest that children with names strongly associated with the opposite gender may face social challenges in school settings. The effects are highly context-dependent and vary by community, age group, and cultural environment. NameAlmanac provides the data on how names are used — the meaning parents assign to that data is a personal decision.
Sources
- Social Security Administration — Baby Names Dataset (1880-present)
- Wattenberg, Laura — "The Baby Name Wizard" and namerology.com analysis
- Evans, Cleveland Kent — "The Great Big Book of Baby Names" and naming trend research
- Barry, Herbert & Harper, Aylene — "Evolution of Unisex Names" (Names: A Journal of Onomastics)
Understanding the Data
The information presented throughout this guide is informed by publicly available public records published by federal and state government agencies. Our database aggregates and standardizes these records to make them more accessible and easier to interpret for general audiences. When we reference specific statistics or trends, they are drawn directly from these authoritative sources unless explicitly noted otherwise.
It is important to understand the limitations of any large-scale data dataset. Records may contain errors from the original data collection process, some fields may be incomplete for older entries, and classification systems may have changed over time. Our analysis accounts for these factors by clearly labeling data vintage, flagging records with missing critical fields, and noting when temporal comparisons span methodology changes in the source data.
For readers who want to conduct their own research, we recommend going directly to the source whenever possible. federal and state government agencies provides detailed documentation on collection methodology, sampling frames, and known data quality issues. Our goal is not to replace primary sources but to make them more approachable and to highlight patterns that may not be immediately obvious when browsing raw records.
How We Analyze Data Records
Our analytical approach involves several steps designed to surface meaningful insights from large datasets. First, we clean and standardize the raw data, handling variations in naming conventions, date formats, and categorical labels. Then we compute summary statistics, distributions, and comparative benchmarks across relevant dimensions such as geography, time period, and category type.
Key metrics we examine include statistical records, geographic distributions, temporal trends. These indicators provide a multi-dimensional view of each entity in our database, allowing users to understand not just individual records but how they compare to peers, regional averages, and national benchmarks. We believe this contextual approach is far more valuable than presenting raw numbers in isolation.