What gender do you prefer this name on?
I prefer it on a boy. It has a harsh masculine sound to it, and besides, it means "SON of Adam," not daughter. It would actually sound very nice on a boy; I detest how popular it has become on girls. I am not a fan of Addison as a girl name at all. I believe it sounds much nicer on a boy. If it weren't a popular girls' name, I'd definitely put it on my list, and more parents would be open to it. Sadly though, it's considered too "girly" to be a boys' name, putting it solely on my guilty pleasure list.
So, which do YOU prefer it on, and why? It's okay if you like it better on a girl. The best answer (10 points!) will be given to the person to the most details, comments, and in-sights explaining WHY they prefer in on that gender, not whether they agree with me. Thanks for answering! :)
Sorry, 3SP, but it is not a woman's name. (Well, it is now.) It started out as a masculine name, but then became feminine over time, like Ashley, Leslie, and Beverly, except still a somewhat viable option for boys. It means SON of Adam.
Madison/Maddison also started out as masculine! It means "SON of Matthew." So, really, it's not any different. But it's okay if you prefer it on a girl. I just want to know why.
@LiveLoveLaugh Normally we disagree, but I actually agree this time. It's ridiculous. It's not Addidaughter, and I can't help but hear the "SON" part. It doesn't seem suitable for girls. And I also agree with you on Emerson and Madison. I found out from Y!A that Emerson was being used on girls, and I was horrified. I thought it sounded way too masculine. I don't see it as feminine at all...
- MughainLv 77 years agoBest Answer
1. Addison is a masculine name that was corrupted to unisex only a short time ago in comparison to just how long its been used for boy. Plus, it means "Son of Adam". People nowadays would never dream of slapping a name that meant "Daughter of..." on their son, so why should "Son of..." be wholly acceptable for girls?
2. We are called the fairer sex for a reason and, while I would respect a full grown woman’s decision to go by George instead of Georgina (as that would be her own decision based on feel and personality), what I cannot stand is all these ‘new-age’ parents forcing masculine names onto their daughters. Not only that but, little girls with masculine names are prone to act out, are highly likely to be bullied and sometimes suffer through gender-identity issues later on in life – this is proven by various government-funded studies and surveys on the matter. Now, this may not directly apply to girls named Addison since the name is now (unfortunately) more female-oriented in this day and age, it still stands for what the name Addison is part of - this disgusting unisex trend.
3. Gender-inappropriate names cripple the chance of future success. A high-ranking business or company will not hire a woman named Emerson; which is backed up by government-funded studies Names like Parker, Spencer, Logan, Billy, Dylan etc. are unprofessional and trendy on girls; hence they will not be credits to whatever business/company they sign with thus no business/company will ever want them.
4. A vast majority of the parents to saddle their innocent little girls with hunky, masculine names are in it to be ‘unique’. They make no secret of that, since they and their supporters all say that they think a name like Avery, for a girl, is ‘cute’ and ‘unique’; despite the fact that it's a French form of ALFRED. Which ultimately means that they have so little faith in their own daughters. They’re so sure that they’ll never live a noteworthy existence, will never be unique – so the least they could do is give their daughter a ‘unique’ name that will stand out, in a jaw-dropping way. That’s sad.
5. The trend is sexist. To girls, it’s like saying that they couldn’t be strong, confident and independent as just normal girls named Sophia, Elizabeth, Regina etc. And to boys, it’s like saying that we don’t think they’re good enough to pull off girl names. And that we have absolutely no respect for them. Which is true, considering the fact that, the more people use these boy names for girls; Emerson, Aubrey, Quinn, Sutton, Rowan, Leslie, Cameron, Maddison, Sidney etc. the less they will be used for boys as parents don’t want their sons being teased for having ‘girly’ names. So what’ll happen then? Boys will eventually be stuck on a metaphorical desert island, with only a few basic names to choose from that haven’t yet been corrupted to unisex. And how long will that last?
6. With these modern ‘unisex’ names around; it’s like saying that everything goes. Because everything DOES go! Elliott, Billy, Charlie, Jamie, Avery, Hayden and Kendall have all been taken. And how long do you think it’ll be before those names get old and not-so-unique? How long do you think it will be before people start moving onto bigger fish? How long do you think it will be before we start seeing little girls running around with the names Kenneth, Montgomery, Alexander, Bartholomew, Jasper, Percival and Charleston? (In fact, some questions considering those names for girls have already cropped up on this site.)
7. ‘Unisex’ names are like a big, fat slap in the face to, not only our ancestors and other cultures, but history itself. End of story.
So people can go ahead and think that unisex names (such as Addison), for girls, are cute and appropriate - despite the fact that, again, we're called the 'fairer sex' for a reason. But really, they’re just hijacked boy names and will continue to be so until boys are permitted to wear a few girl names in fair trade. If that ever happens, then I will be 100% accepting of unisex names, because EVERYTHING would be unisex and so everything would be equal. As it is now, a name that means "Son of Adam" or "Son of ANYTHING" is incredibly inappropriate for a girl, and parents should be ashamed for themselves for using it for their daughters, rather than saving it for their sons...Source(s): An incredibly annoyed 18 year old.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Its a boys name and always will be no matter how you try to change the spelling. I dont get why so many people think that its ok to steal a boys name and slap it on their daughters. Just like the names Madison (SON of Maud), Anderson (SON of Andrew), Kelly which was a boys name.
From Website: Although Addison, today, is given as a name to both genders, it isn't a legitimate unisex name as it's meaning is masculine. (Exactly)
It was actually more popular as a boys name in 1996 then a girls and wasn't even on the charts for girls in the early 90's.
The name is very trendy now and I would stay away from it even for a boy, but it does belong on a BOY not a girl.
Thats my opinion. :PSource(s): http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_o... and my own head
- Kate :]Lv 57 years ago
I really like the name Addison on a boy, too. I'm a really big fan of unisex names on girls, however Addison is one I really only see on a boy. I think it just sounds so masculine. Part of the reason I believe is that my parents actually wanted to name my brother Addison. Although they did not go through with it I believe it's the reason I think of it so much as a boy's name. Another thing is the only person I've ever met with the name Addison was a boy. I really just think it's a masculine sounding name and I love Addison Maxwell together. (:
- LiveLoveLaughLv 77 years ago
I definitely prefer it on a boy, given it's a boy's name. The 'son' indicates a MALE descendent. It's not 'Addidaughter', is it? I absolutely hate it on a girl. It sounds ridiculously masculine, so I don't understand how people can take it as a feminine name. It would be on my usable list for boys, except that I don't like it all that much. I prefer Emerson and Madison for boys.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Regina RoseLv 77 years ago
I prefer it on a boy, too, and I can't help but agree with your reasons. Aside from the obvious meaning, the name itself ends in -son -- which, you would think, would be a clear indicator as to which gender the name should be used on.
I suppose Addison is common for girls is because of its inevitable nickname, Addie; names that end with -ie and -y are generally deemed as more on the feminine side, and so the name has gradually morphed into a female name. I don't know why parents can't name their daughter Adelaide or some other similar name that is actually feminine.
-- Rosie ♥
- -Lv 67 years ago
I understand what you're saying about the -son part of the name and its traditional roots, etc but the fact of the matter is, these girls will almost, always be called by their nicknames, Addie, Maddie, Emmy...And because of that and usage it will lose it's masculine edge.
I personally don't like Addison...Madison I think is nicer on a girl and I'm on the fence about Emerson. It's a very old name where I'm from and on a boy it sounds dated, on a girl it sounds modern/hip.
- 7 years ago
Although Addison is a unisex name I prefer it for a girl! I know plenty of girls name Addison but I never met a boy name Addison. Its sounds more feminine than masculine.
- ♥ Ninja Robot ♥Lv 77 years ago
Girl. I had never even heard of the name until Grey's Anatomy. Because of that, it started out as a girls' name in my mind, and it was only recently that I found out that it was originally masculine. So I prefer it as a girls' name, because the only association I have with it is Addison Montgomery.
- Anonymous7 years ago
On the Social Security Baby name's website, the rank of Addison for a boy's name in the US last year was 866th. For a girl it was 12th in popularity. Hope that helps. I am not sure what year was this though
- 7 years ago
I believe Addison would be better for a females name because of the fact that some bullies in this world may pick a boy with that name because of the fact that it sounds girly so I would stick with using that name for a girl. Also Addison would be better on a girl for nick name Addi, Addil, or Addel.Source(s): My brain