New Post
Search
HelpReplies
Oh boy.
I actually don't mind it on any gender. I think it oddly fits in any situation.
Is it useable? To me, no. I knew too many girls named Taylor growing up. That demographic seemed saturated with Taylor and it's hard to imagine it being more than a flash in the pan indicative of a time period.
That said, with the ubiquity of Taylor Swift, I'm a little surprised we haven't seen more sustained growth in popularity. (Though Swift herself may have been theoretically named after James Taylor (which I question - anyone remember that Hillary Clinton claimed for a time to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary?), she fits in the specific Taylor-saturated timeframe.)
I actually don't mind it on any gender. I think it oddly fits in any situation.
Is it useable? To me, no. I knew too many girls named Taylor growing up. That demographic seemed saturated with Taylor and it's hard to imagine it being more than a flash in the pan indicative of a time period.
That said, with the ubiquity of Taylor Swift, I'm a little surprised we haven't seen more sustained growth in popularity. (Though Swift herself may have been theoretically named after James Taylor (which I question - anyone remember that Hillary Clinton claimed for a time to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary?), she fits in the specific Taylor-saturated timeframe.)
1
I've never been fond of it as a name of humans, male or female. That's because I'm not usually keen on surnames-as-first-names, especially when the surname in question refers to an occupation / action. (Really don't like Carter, Cooper, Tucker...)
There's always at least one "sporty" popular name for girls every decade or so. As another commenter pointed out it was Taylor, then Madison (with an assist from Avery, which I actually really like as a masculine name), and currently Harper. Since all the other top feminine names in the U.S. are very much of the "elegant" variety (usually my aesthetic as well, but poor Olivia is too played out now for me to use), Harper will likely stick around for a long time, until something else "sporty" arrives. It better not be Kennedy...
In other words, while I might dislike Taylor as a feminine name, I understand the purpose Taylor served.
There's always at least one "sporty" popular name for girls every decade or so. As another commenter pointed out it was Taylor, then Madison (with an assist from Avery, which I actually really like as a masculine name), and currently Harper. Since all the other top feminine names in the U.S. are very much of the "elegant" variety (usually my aesthetic as well, but poor Olivia is too played out now for me to use), Harper will likely stick around for a long time, until something else "sporty" arrives. It better not be Kennedy...
In other words, while I might dislike Taylor as a feminine name, I understand the purpose Taylor served.
1
Dated 80-90s trendy name. I like Paige, Whitney, Kelsie, Cassidy better from this category...I even like Saylor better because it seems more fun; Taylor's just always seemed annoyingly shallow/bland in the same kind of way Tatum seems to me now.
Eta: Nameberry calls it a "soap opera favorite"...could be I get that sort of vibe from it.
Eta: Nameberry calls it a "soap opera favorite"...could be I get that sort of vibe from it.
This message was edited 7/15/2023, 9:26 AM
1
when ppl say "Taylor" i IMMEDITLY think of taylor swift, there is lots of taylors from the 80s-10s
1
I never liked Taylor. It's too much just the word tailor, imo.
Ashley in the 80s = Taylor in the 90s = Madison in the 00s = Harper in the 10s.
Trendy name syndrome... At first they have appeal that is based on their novelty - which makes it easy picturing them on a smart ambitious young woman. Who by the way, in the mind's eye is also gorgeous and talented and has a great personality, everything we want for our daughter. After we've met a zillion ordinary girls named them, their mediocrity as names becomes more apparent. The only thing that makes them better than Weaver, Baker, Turner etc is the familiarity of them as first names for gals. We might forget that Taylor isn't as appealing a name to give a baby anymore, when we see flattering photoillustrations of T. Swift all over the place.
Ashley in the 80s = Taylor in the 90s = Madison in the 00s = Harper in the 10s.
Trendy name syndrome... At first they have appeal that is based on their novelty - which makes it easy picturing them on a smart ambitious young woman. Who by the way, in the mind's eye is also gorgeous and talented and has a great personality, everything we want for our daughter. After we've met a zillion ordinary girls named them, their mediocrity as names becomes more apparent. The only thing that makes them better than Weaver, Baker, Turner etc is the familiarity of them as first names for gals. We might forget that Taylor isn't as appealing a name to give a baby anymore, when we see flattering photoillustrations of T. Swift all over the place.
1
Don't like it at all
1
Hate it in a girl, barely okay on a boy. So very tired of surnames as first names.
1