>>90705574The original meaning of a name does have significance in our modern vocabulary, as all words do, because definitions evolve over time rather than spontaneously changing at our whim. Of course you can say that a word's past usage doesn't permanently determine its future ones, but it would be naive to think that the past meanings of our language have absolutely no sway over the future. You're obviously not thinking that, but the name "Dylan" has always been predominantly male and likely will be for quite some time, barring some sort of huge cultural influence to convince the populace otherwise, so it isn't out of the question to call Dylan a weird name for a girl.
I do get your point, and your reasoning is solid, but it really isn't fair to argue that Dylan isn't a weird name for a girl just because its gender-based usage could theoretically be abolished in the future. That's like saying someone shouldn't be insulted by the word 'nigger' because words are a social construct and can change definition at any point in time.
I didn't know that Dylan was a unisex name until now, albeit one that leans heavily towards males, but now you've got me arguing about social constructs and shit when I don't even disagree with you in the first place on those points. This is like the internet version of complaining about your tone of voice. I'm acting like an argumentative girlfriend because you whipped out the social constructs card. The fuck, man, I didn't ask for this?
