Perhaps your looking at this wrong, perhaps Esperanto is sexist against men, after all females have a suffix 'in' and us men don't - Dam you Zam!

But in all seriousness, Esperanto have been used this way for 150 years, perhaps natural evolution will bring something new, but proposing a word, especially one that affects the fundamento so deeply, will be turned down by 90% of the community anyways, due to the following reasons:

1) Purists / traditionalist
2) The reform wary crowd
3) The crowd that see it as pointless
4) The crowd that don't want to see added complexity
5) And of course the group who naturally just stands against everything.

I could go on... but you'll get the point. Also for the record, I'm against these types of pointless reforms, simply creating problems where there isn't one.

I don't see this as creating a problem where none exists, but we have a difference of opinion and I am more than willing to agree to disagree. In all honesty I am not advocation a drastic reform or a reform of the entire language. I am perfectly fine with using vir- and ge- or iĉ in only my personal speech as long as I am still intelligible

I think most Esperantists would agree that if they were the creator of Esperanto, they would have done something differently. Gendering of words is probably something that many Esperanto speakers would have done differently if they were Zamenhof. Zamenhof tried to be equal but he was also a product of his time, with the selective blindnesses that entails. However, the community of Esperanto speakers has generally come to a consensus (for the last 120 years) that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that stability is more important than perfection.

Many beginners are enthusiastic about Esperanto, and also have 'great ideas' for ways to change or improve it. Before you take your ideas and run with them, I have some suggestions for you.

As a matter of respect for the Esperanto-speaking community, I suggest that you learn the language before attempting to reform it. Keep all of your opinions, by all means - just make a conscious decision to learn to speak the language how it is (not how you might want it to be), and then after you speak 'traditional' Esperanto well, revisit your opinions, and decide whether you still feel the same way, once you actually see how the language works, and once you understand from the inside what your proposed changes would entail. Then decide whether you want to speak in your new revised way. A person who explains their ideas on changing Esperanto in good Esperanto is always likely to be taken more seriously than a person who explains their ideas for reforming Esperanto in bad Esperanto. Or in English, for that matter.

You have to understand that most Esperanto speakers see suggestions for Esperanto language reforms just as a Japanese speaker might see suggestions for Japanese language reforms. If I came to you and told you that I have some great ideas for making Japanese better, you would probably call me naive and underinformed. Even if I had read many books and articles on the topic of Japanese grammar, I don't imagine you would take me very seriously, since I don't actually speak Japanese (and even if I spoke at a beginning or intermediate level, I don't think you'd take me too seriously). I can imagine people would even treat me rudely if I came to a Japanese forum with all of my ideas to make the language more gender-equal. It is a testament to the character of the Esperanto community that we are generally so tolerant and patient of attempts to reform our language, coming from people who don't speak it well, or don't speak it at all.

And as a last note - I think sexism is found in language, but that linguistic marking of gender and cultural sexism aren't strongly linked. Swedish is a highly gendered language. Chinese doesn't even distinguish in speech between he, she, and it. Which culture is the more sexist, do you think? If you want my opinion - more important than reforming a couple of grammatical endings in Esperanto is to get more women into positions of power. I would rather see an even mix of men and women in high leadership positions in the Esperanto community (rather than mostly men, like now) than have a meaningless and false veneer of equality with a new suffix.

If it helps, think of the -in- variants as separate roots, rather than female variants on a male root. vir/o = man, virin/o = woman, etc. That's how I think of them in my head, anyway; I think "virino" and the picture of a woman comes to mind, not a 'female man'.

In Esperanto, only the familial nouns are gendered - all other nouns are neutral (unless it's something that is so obviously one specific gender or another that it basically must be interpreted as gendered[1]).

"Kato" doesn't imply a tomcat, for example. It just describes a generic cat. If the gender is important, "virkato" or "katino" will be needed (or their adjectival equivalent, or etc.). "Neutral" is the default gendering for nonfamilial nouns.

"Patro" does, unfortunately, describe a male figure by default. All the familial nouns are male by default, with the feminine -in suffix used for the female side of things. I agree that this isn't the ideal setup, and if it were up to me I probably would have gone with patro/matro, filo/dotoro (or whatever - some word would need to be coined), knabo/girlo (or whatever), and so on.

Unfortunately, it isn't up to me. Or you. Or us.

It's not even a case, really, of saying we shouldn't change it. The realistic fact is, it just isn't going to get changed. The global Esperanto community tends to accept that in practice the Fundamento is unchangeable. This isn't a should or shouldn't kind of thing. This is how it is. Gendered familial nouns are baked into Esperanto at a fundamental level, and they are going to remain there. A small percentage of people may disagree, and try to do their own thing, but the weight of everyone else just going with the Fundamento will outweigh whatever changes are being floated. Trying to change fundamental parts of Esperanto, at this point, is exactly like trying to change fundamental parts of English. Good luck. You can try, but seriously, whatever you try will, in all probability, not be globally accepted; there are a LOT of Esperanto speakers across the globe, and for your proposal to work you have to convince them ALL[2]. What will actually happen is that you'll talk funny for a while, until you yourself eventually give in to reality and decide to speak the language in a more normalized fashion.

This is why reform proposals are just tiring.

So, yes, in my opinion, the current method of gendering familial nouns isn't an ideal method. But... it's the method we use, and I'm pretty confident it'll be the one still in use a century from now. Perhaps it is best to simply acknowledge that yes, it IS an asymmetric system - possibly even unfair, although there is still some debate about that - but, at the same time, that that's just how it is, get used to it, and move on.

-------------------------------
[1] Since this post isn't about those nouns, I'm not going to bother trying to think of any examples. None actually spring immediately to my mind, however.
[2] Or, at least, 51% of them. Yeah, that'll be easier.

Wow. (Basically) same post as erinja's. Just 45 seconds apart.

erinja and RiotNrrd, excellent comments. But I do have a few thoughts to add.

I think simple evolution, over time, has dissipated or at least minimised some less popular parts of Esperanto, in a much more natural way than a brute-force "reform" could ever have done. For example: the letter Ĥ is now almost obsolete, because the community of speakers thought it superfluous; affixes like -isto and -ulo went from being considered "male-unless-indicated-otherwise" to gender-neutral; affixes like "-eg-" and "-et-" are now routinely used as standalone words, whereas before this would have been quite unusual. If there is a broad wish for even more gender neutrality, then I think you'll see things like "vir-" creep into general usage more often. It shouldn't necessarily be resisted if it becomes a wide trend. Esperanto is a living language and we need to accept that, just as we wouldn't insist that people should continue writing in 1850s Victorian English.

So what I'm trying to say is, if there is enough desire among a language's speakers for change, then change will occur organically. Making formal reform proposals works sometimes, but in general is a risky business (I'm reminded of the official 1918 reform of Russian orthography, where the Bolsheviks had to forcefully remove the eliminated letters from printing presses to ensure compliance).

Trying to change fundamental parts of Esperanto, at this point, is exactly like trying to change fundamental parts of English

I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to suggest that "-iĉo" isn't necessarily a "kontraŭ-Fundamenta" idea. In the past, the community has even been receptive of innovations at this level (the affix "-enda", which I believe was actually imported from Ido (?), comes to mind). It's not like we're saying "hey, let's add a couple of grammatical cases and throw out adjective-noun agreement".

(In reply to RiotNrrd) Not directly relevant to the topic, but if anyone finds it interesting, I can think of two words whose genders cannot be meaningfully changed: eŭnuko and nutristino.

I'm a bit of an "eterna komencanto" in that issues like this will absolutely put me off of the notion of Esperanto for long periods at a time. Therefore, not being fluent in the language, I'm sure a lot of you will argue that I have no place in pushing for reforms. This IS however an important issue and it really hits a sore point that people are brushing it off as a non-issue or a naive argument that doesn't deserve any recognition.

If -o is meant to be neutral, as it's often used nowadays, why should it also be masculine? It makes more sense that all people could use -o as genderless and if we choose to be specific, it's a good idea for us to have our own distinctions in a symmetrical way. Vir- as a prefix seems strange and makes no sense in the context of -in being a suffix. Why in the world would it be placed in the front of a word while the feminine is not? Even this seems to be some way of holding the masculine in higher esteem.

Which takes me to the issue of ge-. I find this so illogical. The way things are now, nouns are specified as male or female(especially in the case of familial terms) and you add ge- to specify neutrality. I find it much more useful to start out with neutrality and have the option to specify gender with the use of -iĉ and -in. In this way "parents" would be "patroj", instead of the strangely-formed "gepatroj"(neutral-dads?).

It seems that a lot of people have no real reason to dislike this idea other than the fact that "things have always been this way", or because it's complicating the language. How is it so complicated, exactly? You don't like it, but since you've heard of it you now have the instant ability to add it to your speech. You immediately understand where to put it and why, regardless of your opinion of it. This isn't a natural language, so why should it have the same trappings as one? The great thing is that we COULD choose to change it. Let's be frank, there aren't many speakers at the moment so if there were ever large influxes of newcomers, they would learn this with no issue at all.

I'm not generally bothered with these sorts of issues, honestly. My initial reasons for support were purely for the logicality of the idea, but the fact that it's getting people upset(at least enough to call it stupid) makes me think there's resistance to it for some slightly subconsciously sexist reasons. I'm not calling into question any of your morals or characters, but I definitely believe there are some long standing positions that come only with privilege. It is NOT honorary to be "othered", to be thought of as separate from the "natural state" of masculinity.

I'm not proposing that -iĉ is the best suffix for the job, but it's the most well known and used. If we decided to use the other proposal of -un(or something else entirely), that would be just fine. But as far as I'm concerned it is a necessary and completely logical and equalizing addition to the language.

I'm sure a lot of you will argue that I have no place in pushing for reforms

Personally I think ideas and suggestions should be considered on their own merits, not those of the person making them. But unfortunately this might count against you in the broader community, yes.

This IS however an important issue and it really hits a sore point that people are brushing it off as a non-issue or a naive argument that doesn't deserve any recognition

Agreed. Although I don't support "iĉismo", I don't think dismissing it ad hominem is the way to go.

This isn't a natural language, so why should it have the same trappings as one?

In 1905, when Esperanto was still very young, I might have agreed. But I'd like to suggest that, despite its "artificial" origins, over the past 110 years Esperanto has taken on the same evolutionary traits and behaviour as natural languages. Different lexicons and mannerisms go in and out of style, words and spellings change over the decades, just as in English. So I tend to view any reform proposals with a similar attitude to someone who was suggesting making changes to English. (I understand that the analogy is not perfect, since Esperanto will never be considered a full-blooded brother of any natural language, perhaps for good reasons.)

there's resistance to it for some slightly subconsciously sexist reasons

I was being slightly facetious regarding my "honorary" comment, but I wished to point out that what seems obvious to one person, may have a completely different significance to someone else.

One might point out that many natural languages have an inherent sexist bias; but does that invalidate them? In Russian, for instance, when referring to an abstract person, masculine is invariably indicated in pronouns and verb/adjective inflections. Even if I were talking to a female-only group, I would ask "Kto s'jel moj banan?" ("Who ate my banana?" ) with "s'jel", the verb, superficially in the masculine gender. Yet I've never heard people objecting to this (and indeed, it is practically impossible to be "gender-neutral" in Russian without going to extremes like putting every gender-indicating word in neuter or plural, which sounds completely absurd).

Again, if people feel strongly about using -iĉ, I say go ahead and do what you think is best. If enough people feel the same way as you do, for a long enough time, then via a natural evolutionary process, it will become assimilated into the language at least as an accepted variant. I don't think iĉismo violates any core principles of the Fundamento per se.