Is Giles a boy or girl name?
Giles is a boy name in the US. In 2024, 0 girls and 19 boys were named Giles, so 0% were girls. Across 1880–2024, 0% of the 4,719 US babies named Giles were girls.
- Boy rank, 2024
- #5,104
- Girl rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Babies named Giles since 1880
- 4,719
- Most popular year
- 1918
- 86 babies
Boys and girls named Giles, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 153 | 0 | 0% |
| 1890s | 93 | 0 | 0% |
| 1900s | 103 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 508 | 0 | 0% |
| 1920s | 685 | 0 | 0% |
| 1930s | 595 | 0 | 0% |
| 1940s | 476 | 0 | 0% |
| 1950s | 490 | 0 | 0% |
| 1960s | 342 | 0 | 0% |
| 1970s | 280 | 0 | 0% |
| 1980s | 257 | 0 | 0% |
| 1990s | 243 | 0 | 0% |
| 2000s | 210 | 0 | 0% |
| 2010s | 207 | 0 | 0% |
| 2020s | 77 | 0 | 0% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 19 | #5,104 | 0 | – |
| 2023 | 11 | #7,433 | 0 | – |
| 2022 | 13 | #6,591 | 0 | – |
| 2021 | 16 | #5,623 | 0 | – |
| 2020 | 18 | #5,101 | 0 | – |
| 2019 | 29 | #3,746 | 0 | – |
| 2018 | 19 | #4,990 | 0 | – |
| 2017 | 15 | #5,895 | 0 | – |
| 2016 | 17 | #5,389 | 0 | – |
| 2015 | 20 | #4,774 | 0 | – |
| 2014 | 12 | #6,776 | 0 | – |
| 2013 | 20 | #4,680 | 0 | – |
| 2012 | 25 | #4,052 | 0 | – |
| 2011 | 20 | #4,715 | 0 | – |
| 2010 | 30 | #3,565 | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 20 | #4,815 | 0 | – |
| 2008 | 23 | #4,308 | 0 | – |
| 2007 | 26 | #3,931 | 0 | – |
| 2006 | 19 | #4,748 | 0 | – |
| 2005 | 28 | #3,476 | 0 | – |
| 2004 | 21 | #4,168 | 0 | – |
| 2003 | 22 | #3,881 | 0 | – |
| 2002 | 19 | #4,229 | 0 | – |
| 2001 | 17 | #4,558 | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 15 | #4,873 | 0 | – |
| 1999 | 18 | #4,050 | 0 | – |
| 1998 | 17 | #4,078 | 0 | – |
| 1997 | 24 | #3,093 | 0 | – |
| 1996 | 16 | #4,072 | 0 | – |
| 1995 | 28 | #2,642 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 22 | #3,153 | 0 | – |
| 1993 | 29 | #2,534 | 0 | – |
| 1992 | 39 | #2,016 | 0 | – |
| 1991 | 31 | #2,310 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 19 | #3,222 | 0 | – |
| 1989 | 26 | #2,505 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 15 | #3,415 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 25 | #2,293 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 30 | #1,979 | 0 | – |
| 1985 | 26 | #2,144 | 0 | – |
| 1984 | 34 | #1,703 | 0 | – |
| 1983 | 24 | #2,167 | 0 | – |
| 1982 | 28 | #1,951 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 24 | #2,156 | 0 | – |
| 1980 | 25 | #2,135 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 25 | #2,066 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 31 | #1,736 | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 22 | #2,150 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 26 | #1,897 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 28 | #1,762 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 36 | #1,451 | 0 | – |
| 1973 | 20 | #2,075 | 0 | – |
| 1972 | 31 | #1,546 | 0 | – |
| 1971 | 29 | #1,647 | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 32 | #1,506 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 30 | #1,479 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 29 | #1,466 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 28 | #1,459 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 31 | #1,382 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 23 | #1,640 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 41 | #1,206 | 0 | – |
| 1963 | 35 | #1,329 | 0 | – |
| 1962 | 47 | #1,129 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 30 | #1,475 | 0 | – |
| 1960 | 48 | #1,135 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 37 | #1,283 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 46 | #1,141 | 0 | – |
| 1957 | 52 | #1,056 | 0 | – |
| 1956 | 51 | #1,058 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 62 | #954 | 0 | – |
| 1954 | 58 | #982 | 0 | – |
| 1953 | 44 | #1,113 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 43 | #1,124 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 50 | #998 | 0 | – |
| 1950 | 47 | #1,030 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 38 | #1,153 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 50 | #994 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 54 | #971 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 31 | #1,269 | 0 | – |
| 1945 | 43 | #978 | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 54 | #863 | 0 | – |
| 1943 | 51 | #935 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 49 | #950 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 62 | #802 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 44 | #973 | 0 | – |
| 1939 | 47 | #907 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 61 | #788 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 41 | #995 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 52 | #847 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 59 | #806 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 60 | #801 | 0 | – |
| 1933 | 69 | #737 | 0 | – |
| 1932 | 77 | #705 | 0 | – |
| 1931 | 66 | #771 | 0 | – |
| 1930 | 63 | #819 | 0 | – |
| 1929 | 69 | #773 | 0 | – |
| 1928 | 80 | #710 | 0 | – |
| 1927 | 70 | #791 | 0 | – |
| 1926 | 60 | #862 | 0 | – |
| 1925 | 78 | #741 | 0 | – |
| 1924 | 63 | #866 | 0 | – |
| 1923 | 64 | #849 | 0 | – |
| 1922 | 80 | #738 | 0 | – |
| 1921 | 52 | #977 | 0 | – |
| 1920 | 69 | #807 | 0 | – |
| 1919 | 66 | #804 | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 86 | #671 | 0 | – |
| 1917 | 73 | #718 | 0 | – |
| 1916 | 54 | #859 | 0 | – |
| 1915 | 65 | #744 | 0 | – |
| 1914 | 56 | #681 | 0 | – |
| 1913 | 45 | #673 | 0 | – |
| 1912 | 32 | #772 | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 18 | #773 | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 13 | #893 | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 9 | #1,047 | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 14 | #723 | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 7 | #1,139 | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 7 | #1,056 | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 9 | #865 | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 15 | #596 | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 7 | #951 | 0 | – |
| 1902 | 9 | #818 | 0 | – |
| 1901 | 11 | #655 | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 15 | #657 | 0 | – |
| 1899 | 17 | #464 | 0 | – |
| 1898 | 6 | #1,056 | 0 | – |
| 1897 | 13 | #593 | 0 | – |
| 1896 | 8 | #850 | 0 | – |
| 1895 | 8 | #825 | 0 | – |
| 1894 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1893 | 17 | #455 | 0 | – |
| 1892 | 7 | #893 | 0 | – |
| 1891 | 6 | #892 | 0 | – |
| 1890 | 11 | #614 | 0 | – |
| 1889 | 12 | #563 | 0 | – |
| 1888 | 20 | #421 | 0 | – |
| 1887 | 11 | #562 | 0 | – |
| 1886 | 13 | #524 | 0 | – |
| 1885 | 15 | #488 | 0 | – |
| 1884 | 14 | #512 | 0 | – |
| 1883 | 17 | #438 | 0 | – |
| 1882 | 12 | #558 | 0 | – |
| 1881 | 21 | #367 | 0 | – |
| 1880 | 18 | #409 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Giles reached #367 in 1881. It has never been ranked as a girl name. Ranks count every name SSA published for that year and sex, so they go well past the top 1,000.
Names from the same era
These names were also most popular in the 1910s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Source: US Social Security Administration baby name data, 1880–2024. Counts are Social Security card applications for US births; SSA leaves out names given to fewer than 5 babies in a year. Updated 2026-10-05. How these numbers are made.