Hmm, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree Dana.
Even ‘classic’ boys’ names that are associated with my generation are not used very much at all, at the moment.
I went to school with Davids, Peters, Michaels, Johns, Simons, Marks, Richards, etc. it’s very unusual to hear babies being called those names now.
At the moment, the fad re boys’ names is the variation on a nickname - Harry, Archie, Charlie, Freddie, Albie, Alfie, etc. (not unlike the current fad for Daisy, Ruby, Milly, Ellie, et al.).
And then the surname range - Hunter, Ri/yder, Harrison, Jackson, Miller, Harley, Cooper, etc.
And then ... the more ‘left field’ range - Milo, Felix, Orson, Asher, Silas, Forrest, Flynn, Atticus, Wolf, Fox, Zephyr, Rocco (and these aren’t even very left field - they’re just some of the names that have circled my kids’ schools and pre-schools).
I don’t expect to change your mind! But personally, I don’t see any difference between the range, cycles (in and out) of fashion, and choices of more unusual names for boys than for girls.
I find this topic particularly interesting because I was given a very cyclical name - it was very fashionable in the early 1900s when lots of girls were given it. I was then given it in the 1970s when it was considered so old-fashioned (I’m named after my GM) - my Dad said they were popping up in the obituaries every other day and he wondered if they’d made a terrible mistake). I disliked my name growing up. But here were are now, and the name (and its variations) has dominated the top 10 for over a decade. I like it now!