No info yet
No favorite names yet.
I think Catherine or Claire would work very well with that sibset.
Tabitha, because I had a girl in school with that name and that's what I'm used to.
Catherine or Katherine?
I'd keep it as Isabelle.
Good point - but if you used names that are/were similar in popularity to Sarah for your boys you probably shouldn't worry. If anything, I think there would be less issues with a girl having a common full name than a boy (at least in the practical sense) - namely because it's much more likely she'd be changing her last name later in life and there are fewer female criminals, etc.
Why do you think it's easier for a boy than a girl to have a name that's declining in popularity? (Other than that girl's names tend to go in and out of fashion quicker than boy's names - but Sarah is no flash-in-the-pan name, but rather a classic.) In any case, I think Sarah is a good fit with your other children's names.
Remember that a lot of "nickname names" on the mid-century or so lists are likely artifacts, as I've described here.
I think it was some kind of error, as numerous other names showed up in KY ranked extraordinarily high for the "wrong" gender.
I think it'd be more accurate to phrase the title of the thread "Do you like your birth name?" if that's what you're going after, since one's legal name (whether it's been changed or not) is their real name. (Sorry if I sound picky, but knowing some transgender people getting that right is important to them.)
I did a post at my (otherwise very slow these days) blog about one of the reasons I think Oliver doesn't rank as high in the U.S. as it does in many other English-speaking countries: http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2017/05/why-isnt-oliver-as-popular-in-us-as.html
As it turns out using Laura's analysis the four states that have Oliver mentioned in this blog all have lower than average Hispanic populations (MN, ND, VT, and WI).
I heard somewhere that Caitlyn's original transition attempt was in the late '80s when that name was at its fashion height. Due to the even stronger stigma against transgender people at the time she didn't publicly start living as a woman then, but she probably decided to stick with the name she'd chosen when she first tried.
@TheOtherHungarian - That change took place in 1986, but the requirement was phased in from oldest to youngest* - so it would be several more years before the SSA list would (for the most part) be a list of names given at birth (an important fact to remember when analyzing the lists before then as the differences have resulted in numerous statistical artifacts).
Before that, while it was possible to obtain a number at any age, many did not do so until they started working and it was necessary for reporting purposes (and all the lists from before Social Security was establised in the 1930s are completely retroactively constructed, as no one would've had a number before then).
Actually 9/11 was probably just one of a combination of factors that led to this increased scrutiny - others include the rise of the Internet (making searches much easier) and identity theft becoming much more rampant.
*For good reason - requiring SSNs for dependents on taxes thwarted those who would try to claim fictitious people, and starting with the oldest would catch those already doing so (requiring numbers only for example for new dependents would effectively "grandfather in" those older fake dependents unless the IRS were to actively audit the case).
I agree with you in that the n-sound of Lauren would help keep the combo from being misheard as Laurel-Lucy.
On their own I like Laura and Lauren about equally, but I think Lauren would flow better with Lucy as a MN.
I agree with you about Catherine - great choice (even with your last name) IMO! (BTW I like the "C" spelling best too.)
@nedibes - With Wikipedia I'd call it a "tie" since when you search for "Augusta" with no other terms it goes to a disambiguation page first.
I'd also like to point out that the number of "nickname names" on the SSA list may be artificially high, given the circumstances one often obtained a Social Security number back then. Many from that generation obtained their number at the time they got their first official job (they weren't required for parents to claim their kids on taxes until the late 1980s). Some may have put the nickname they go by on a daily basis instead of their birth-certificate name, and at that time "matching documents" was not as strictly enforced as it is now.
This is one of numerous artifacts on the older lists (since c. 1990s when numbers became routinely assigned at birth such "false" entries are much less common, except for "placeholder" names when a name is still undecided when the number is applied for).
Your statement about no originally-surname names in the Top 100 for girls in the 1950s is incorrect - you forgot about Shirley.
I think it has more to do with a transphobic judge than the gendering of names. I think this transman has a good chance at appeal, since unlike for example the "bathroom issues" an unfavorable ruling would not just affect the transgender or even the LGBT community for that matter. It could affect anyone choosing a name for a baby if names start having an official "legal" gender associated with them.
How about Dylan or Ryan?
Good point, but what I meant as "surprising" are the areas of the country where you're more likely to meet a male Kelly vs. those where you are less likely (and not the national/international current gender usage for the name).