pikolas:What about the thoughts that this gender problem reflects sexism in the structure of Esperanto?

Wouldn't that be the legitimate case for seriously thinking about reforms?

The only part of Esperanto that I perceive as sexism is that the male forms of family words are the base forms. patro/patrino, frato/fratino, etc.

Other words are gender neutral! Kuracisto, instruisto, etc, those are all gender neutral, so there's no sexism there.

I think that family words having male forms is unfortunate but not a big deal, and not worth changing. I don't believe that it increases any sexism in the thoughts of the speakers, or sexist behaviour. Truthfully, fluent Esperanto speakers don't think to themselves "Oh, patr/in/o, female father!"

These words are used so frequently that they might as well be roots in their own right; patr/o, patrin/o, etc. In my mind they behave as roots.

If you could prove that using male family words as a basis for female words increased sexist behaviour, then I'd support taking a look at changing them. But I don't believe this to be the case. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Swedish is a highly gendered language, yet it has one of the most equal societies in the world.

Kalantir, I know exactly where you're coming from, but it's pointless to argue for Esperanto reforms of this magnitude because of the Fundamento. If the inconsistencies bother you that much though, I encourage you to take up constructing your own language.

razlem:I encourage you to take up constructing your own language.

Razlem could tell you about many resources in this field, if you're interested.

----

On the topic of language reforms, it may interest you to read this old thread (it isn't the only one; we have several threads of this nature on the site)

Kalantir:Well, it's become pretty clear that most of you don't think this is something worth changing, but do you at least acknowledge my points to be valid on some level?

Yes, your points are valid. However, stability is more important.

Two new affixes have been added to Esperantoso far: mis- and -acx- (*). I think -icx- could be added in a slow and non-disruptive way as an informal alternative to vir-, not as a committe decision and never changing the meaning of well-established words. I won't lead the way tho , it's just the way I see how it could happen sometime in the future.

(*) And -i- for countries, which is not completely official yet.

erinja:I don't believe that it increases any sexism in the thoughts of the speakers, or sexist behaviour.

I agree completely with you there.

But then again, how can a movement as progressive as Esperanto's claim to foster and reflect Human equality when its own structure lacks (although only in a small part of it) this very ideal?

That's a contradiction right there.

Even though I'm not personally keen on altering this sexist pattern of Esperanto, I recognize this criticism as accurate, as I wouldn't know how to retort it if a feminist threw it at me, for instance.

jean-luc:From my (beginner) point of view, and about all the critics of EO as a language, the only point which worry me is the fight between "bona lingvo" and "mava lingvo".

What's "bad language" meant to be? To my English ears it sounds more like "Esperanto spoken incorrectly" rather than some sort philosophical split in the EO community (unless badly speaking Esperantists want to take over the entire language?? )

As for gender neutrality, I said I wouldn't support a reform, but in actual fact I would sort of, just not introducing new words, but changing styles.

For example, I'd assume all "male-by-default" roots like edzo and knabo to be gender neutral.
Additionally, "viro" keeps existing meaning, "ino" gets promoted in usage to mirror "viro" (it technically is used like that, but no where near enough to consider it as common or a true equal).

---

It feels weird to say "inkato", so thinking further about it all, keep the placement of the affix the way it was.

Worst that could happen is that some angry feminists might claim that "vir-" coming ahead of "-in" is chauvinist, when technically "-ino" basically assumes the position of the "base root" (so if analysed traditionally as if we'd analyse, say, "kukofari" (make a cake), "katino" is theoretically saying "cat-female" rather than "female-cat"). So as far as I'm now 3 seconds later concerned, it's not a big problem. Vir-'s at the start but it acts like a mere adjectival prefix, where as -ino's at the end and acts like a true part of the root.

(perhaps a reflection of real life? Men have often claimed to rule the world, but in actual fact women are the ones doing a lot of the hard work, and in the end, they're both just as important regardless of how they act )

Erinja:I don't believe that it increases any sexism in the thoughts of the speakers, or sexist behaviour.

I believe it could, but I think Sapir-Whorf hypotheses only really apply to native languages...

Either way, I blame Indo-Europeans, they started off with a language that distinguished between animacy and inanimacy, and then decided "hey, let's make a suffix just for women... and apply it randomly to non-female things... without adding a male suffix".

If you want anyone to blame for this strange animate-female-inanimate classification system, blame them

pikolas:Even though I'm not personally keen on altering this sexist pattern of Esperanto, I recognize this criticism as accurate, as I wouldn't know how to retort it if a feminist threw it at me, for instance.

I wouldn't even bother. I'd just explain "hey, this is how the language was created way back in the olden days, it's been reinforced by tonnes of speakers choosing to speak the way that was originally prescribed, only easy way to change it is to encourage people to change their ways, e.g. use masculine-roots as if they're neutral, and hope it catches on."

I think gender neutrality is an awesome idea. But currently Esperanto isn't open to revisions so I don't think it will gain any headway. If it did I'd fully support it.

Actually, females get a better representation in the language than males, consider the following two terms: koramiko vs koramikino. the former means either lover or boyfriend, the latter can only mean girlfriend. males have to share their word with the gender neutral form. still it's a moot point for the very reason that gendered terms have no influence on the sexism or lack thereof of the speaker. This is the case with a lot of words, as an English speaker, I find political correctness's attempt to influence the gender specifications of our language absurd. I'm sorry, it's our firemen, policemen, chairman, etc. just my two cents/sense.

I have nothing against "-iĉ" per se. Nor I do treat the resistance to it lightly. But this resistance to reform is an attitude rooted in historical conflict, and we're no longer in conflict with anybody. Stability, I agree, prevented E-o from being torn apart by the Ido crisis or by any other reform project. But that's not the issue anymore.

The problem is that some speakers are overprotective of that stability. They are inadvertently ossifying E-o with their fear of instability, despite their good intentions. The fact is that E-o is not chained to rigid tradition that is unmodifiable. The Fundamento is a mere skeleton, not the whole body. It could be expanded upon as long as the changes does not nullify its rules. Treat it like the Constitution. It's the highest law we have, but it is NOT the entire body of law. If any new rule goes against the Fundamento, OK, it's unconstitutional. But if not, why stop it?

I also dare say that some people, just by reaching fluency, do try to be more academic than the Academicians by silencing any mere tendency toward some reforms. These people are well-meaning, but I fear that they're becoming too legalistic. We already have the Academy~! It is they who decides and give the orders, not us, mere speakers. Let the mini-reformers and the curious ones experiment. But they should know, that all reform proposals will have their day in the Academy; and when they decide, all Esperanto-speakers will be bound by the decision and should abide by it. That's what Zamenhof wanted, both democratic procedures and respect for law and order. I only hope that nobody misunderstands me. Pacon~!