No info yet
No favorite names yet.
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).
I should note that my find for MA is based on the states with sufficient population for enough information to appear on the SSA's state-by-state lists - I was unable to accurately compute a ratio for some of the smallest states where less than five occurrences was common.
You can, but you may have to go through the courts with the legal name change process. Many states will not let you drop your first name with just the marriage license (the changes you can usually do that way are drop your maiden last name to be replaced with your married one, add to or replace your middle name with your maiden name, or hyphenate your last name). Unless you live and get married in a state that allows for any kind of name change at marriage you won't be able to save yourself from having to go to and pay for court (but by doing it at the same time as when you get married you'll still save yourself a second round of document changes).
@xtinamarie - For a modern girl those names would indeed be unique among her peers!
@Aiea - Bernie might be a good candidate for NOTY next year if he does end up getting the Democratic nomination, but let's not jump the gun and make the same mistake we did with Barack in 2007 (precluding it for being in the running for 2008 when the name was more prominent).
@nicwoo - What do you mean Caitlyn was considered last year? Jenner didn't reveal that as her chosen name until this year.
I nominate Caitlyn too - as an activist for the transgender community Jenner's transition has helped raise awareness of their issues to the general public.
Actually what you said about SSNs is not quite true. The part about the middle number set is incorrect - those numbers are assigned using a particular formula from each set of first-block numbers (and have nothing to do with the date of birth - if that were true no one would have middle numbers greater than 31). You're only loosely correct about the first numbers - more accurately they're based on where you lived when the SSN was obtained (while for those born since SSNs were necessary to claim a tax exemption for the child it's most likely where they were born too unless they're immigrants or had some special reason for getting a new number, for those older it may not be if they've moved since birth). (That change in the typical logistics of when you got your SSN is also responsible for some of the artifcats on the name popularity lists.)
ETA: I look at the most recent rules on how SSNs are assigned, and numbers are no longer assigned based on geography, so for numbers obtained since that change the first block does not indicate anything.
The main issue that I'd see with changing your whole name at the same time (as opposed to only your first/middle or last name but not both) is if you're in a situation where the courts may be suspicious that you may be trying to defraud others by changing your entire name (e.g. deep in debt, have a criminal history, etc.) - on the other hand changing one at a time but doing two name changes a short amount of time apart would be just as suspicious. If your background is clean and you've got a legitimate reason (even if it's just personal) for your name change you should be okay.