Is Jame a boy or girl name?
Jame was mostly a boy name in the US. Across 1880–2024, 10.5% of the 3,833 US babies named Jame were girls. Fewer than 10 babies were given the name in 2024.
- Boy rank, 2024
- #11,471
- Girl rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Babies named Jame since 1903
- 3,833
- Most popular year
- 1957
- 93 babies
Boys and girls named Jame, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1900s | 16 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 121 | 0 | 0% |
| 1920s | 273 | 0 | 0% |
| 1930s | 380 | 0 | 0% |
| 1940s | 485 | 0 | 0% |
| 1950s | 634 | 11 | 1.7% |
| 1960s | 619 | 72 | 10.4% |
| 1970s | 410 | 103 | 20.1% |
| 1980s | 257 | 124 | 32.5% |
| 1990s | 127 | 59 | 31.7% |
| 2000s | 60 | 34 | 36.2% |
| 2010s | 37 | 0 | 0% |
| 2020s | 11 | 0 | 0% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 6 | #11,471 | 0 | – |
| 2023 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2022 | 5 | #13,140 | 0 | – |
| 2021 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2020 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2019 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2018 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2017 | 5 | #13,088 | 0 | – |
| 2016 | 5 | #13,028 | 0 | – |
| 2015 | 7 | #9,990 | 0 | – |
| 2014 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2013 | 8 | #9,145 | 0 | – |
| 2012 | 5 | #13,056 | 0 | – |
| 2011 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2010 | 7 | #10,121 | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 8 | #9,344 | 0 | – |
| 2008 | 8 | #9,351 | 0 | – |
| 2007 | 10 | #7,833 | 0 | – |
| 2006 | 9 | #8,304 | 5 | #18,308 |
| 2005 | 7 | #9,538 | 0 | – |
| 2004 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2003 | 0 | – | 7 | #12,974 |
| 2002 | 6 | #9,912 | 15 | #7,202 |
| 2001 | 6 | #9,786 | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 6 | #9,591 | 7 | #12,327 |
| 1999 | 15 | #4,633 | 5 | #15,362 |
| 1998 | 8 | #7,131 | 5 | #15,096 |
| 1997 | 11 | #5,429 | 7 | #11,308 |
| 1996 | 13 | #4,717 | 10 | #8,416 |
| 1995 | 12 | #4,928 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 12 | #4,923 | 7 | #11,016 |
| 1993 | 11 | #5,157 | 9 | #9,021 |
| 1992 | 12 | #4,679 | 9 | #9,029 |
| 1991 | 16 | #3,721 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 17 | #3,517 | 7 | #10,639 |
| 1989 | 24 | #2,647 | 9 | #8,301 |
| 1988 | 15 | #3,426 | 6 | #10,878 |
| 1987 | 34 | #1,880 | 12 | #6,067 |
| 1986 | 33 | #1,858 | 10 | #6,789 |
| 1985 | 22 | #2,382 | 19 | #4,189 |
| 1984 | 19 | #2,569 | 16 | #4,570 |
| 1983 | 27 | #1,980 | 14 | #4,972 |
| 1982 | 28 | #1,956 | 10 | #6,539 |
| 1981 | 26 | #2,063 | 7 | #8,447 |
| 1980 | 29 | #1,925 | 21 | #3,765 |
| 1979 | 21 | #2,334 | 13 | #5,207 |
| 1978 | 28 | #1,846 | 13 | #5,025 |
| 1977 | 29 | #1,805 | 20 | #3,671 |
| 1976 | 36 | #1,516 | 14 | #4,442 |
| 1975 | 43 | #1,330 | 7 | #7,453 |
| 1974 | 39 | #1,377 | 5 | #9,273 |
| 1973 | 36 | #1,415 | 5 | #8,910 |
| 1972 | 59 | #1,056 | 5 | #8,755 |
| 1971 | 54 | #1,118 | 11 | #4,922 |
| 1970 | 65 | #1,009 | 10 | #5,186 |
| 1969 | 59 | #1,005 | 10 | #4,837 |
| 1968 | 43 | #1,157 | 13 | #3,870 |
| 1967 | 57 | #960 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 66 | #893 | 10 | #4,298 |
| 1965 | 46 | #1,099 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 67 | #933 | 9 | #4,759 |
| 1963 | 67 | #917 | 7 | #5,540 |
| 1962 | 73 | #894 | 8 | #5,037 |
| 1961 | 73 | #900 | 6 | #6,115 |
| 1960 | 68 | #920 | 9 | #4,586 |
| 1959 | 67 | #944 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 73 | #888 | 5 | #6,467 |
| 1957 | 87 | #810 | 6 | #5,685 |
| 1956 | 57 | #996 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 66 | #918 | 0 | – |
| 1954 | 49 | #1,073 | 0 | – |
| 1953 | 59 | #935 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 57 | #945 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 69 | #845 | 0 | – |
| 1950 | 50 | #983 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 46 | #1,038 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 57 | #914 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 44 | #1,099 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 40 | #1,105 | 0 | – |
| 1945 | 43 | #980 | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 40 | #1,047 | 0 | – |
| 1943 | 61 | #851 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 54 | #903 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 40 | #1,028 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 60 | #806 | 0 | – |
| 1939 | 36 | #1,077 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 48 | #916 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 38 | #1,042 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 34 | #1,128 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 36 | #1,087 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 41 | #1,015 | 0 | – |
| 1933 | 44 | #953 | 0 | – |
| 1932 | 32 | #1,208 | 0 | – |
| 1931 | 35 | #1,159 | 0 | – |
| 1930 | 36 | #1,184 | 0 | – |
| 1929 | 35 | #1,184 | 0 | – |
| 1928 | 36 | #1,199 | 0 | – |
| 1927 | 36 | #1,214 | 0 | – |
| 1926 | 40 | #1,138 | 0 | – |
| 1925 | 24 | #1,556 | 0 | – |
| 1924 | 25 | #1,552 | 0 | – |
| 1923 | 21 | #1,721 | 0 | – |
| 1922 | 25 | #1,527 | 0 | – |
| 1921 | 9 | #3,100 | 0 | – |
| 1920 | 22 | #1,665 | 0 | – |
| 1919 | 17 | #1,926 | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 15 | #2,111 | 0 | – |
| 1917 | 15 | #2,040 | 0 | – |
| 1916 | 20 | #1,620 | 0 | – |
| 1915 | 13 | #2,122 | 0 | – |
| 1914 | 13 | #1,823 | 0 | – |
| 1913 | 10 | #1,874 | 0 | – |
| 1912 | 13 | #1,393 | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 5 | #1,716 | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 5 | #1,501 | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 5 | #1,446 | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 6 | #1,077 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Jame reached #806 in 1940. As a girl name, it reached #3,671 in 1977. 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 1950s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Jame
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.