For the basic human words being male by default, to me the answer is obvious - the language is a product of its time.

Choice of vocabulary that is clearly pejorative is an arena where native speakers (or in Esperanto's case, fluent speakers) might fairly choose to use a different term.

If the Esperanto word for "woman" was the same word as "housemaid", fluent speakers of Esperanto might fairly look for a different word (for use in parallel with the old one).

Fluent/native speaker is the key here. I don't speak Japanese, and even if I were to start to learn it, it shouldn't be me who is telling the Japanese what to call a wife in Japanese, and even if I have an opinion in this matter, I probably shouldn't show up in a Japanese learners' forum suggesting that the Japanese change their word. This is a change that should come from within.

One final issue -- if two words are clearly in vast use, then to me, it's fair game to the learner, which to choose. Hebrew has two words for "husband". The more traditional term, in wider historical use, is "baal", which means owner or master. The other, a more modern coinage but in very wide modern use and also with some Biblical basis, is "ish", meaning "man" (analogous, then, to "isha", meaning both woman and wife). As a beginner in Hebrew, I would feel comfortable choosing to use "ish" for husband, though this is the newer of the terms, because it is already in very wide use, and has been for some time. However, if "ish" were a newfangled neologism used by only a very few people, I would stick with "baal", even though I do find it somewhat offensive to refer to "a master and his woman" (and for what it's worth, in the traditional songs that use "baal" to mean husband, I sing it as written, I don't swap in the modern word "ish" )

Bottom line - language changes and evolution need to happen within the community of fluent speakers, not from beginners who can barely compose a grammatical sentence in the language.

Edit: It's a fair question for a learner to ask, "Hey, is it really true that the only way to say "wife" in Esperanto is the equivalent of "housemaid"?" But the learner should accept the answer if the community says "Yes, this is the word everyone uses", and at this point, the learner should learn the language to fluency and integrate into the community before introducing their proposed new word.

erinja:if two words are clearly in vast use, then to me, it's fair game to the learner, which to choose.

To dismiss the noob for his noobulence sounds perfectly reasonable, but what if the noob is echoing something proposed by experienced Esperantists?

The iĉ thing has been around for a long time, after all, and according to Wikipedia, has been used in some published works. So, too, have numerous other neologisms. And while they might not have gained general acceptance and may even be discouraged in the PMEG, some of them have been proposed so much around the net that they might indeed seem to be in vast use — and therefore “fair game” — to the learner. A forum of self-described spertuloj telling a new Esperantist that this or that neologism is not in fact in vast use might contradict what the new Esperantist has read elsewhere. All the more reason to either be patient with noobs or, if that’s too much, abstain from unloading on them and simply ignore them.

erinja:Hebrew has two words for "husband". The more traditional term, in wider historical use, is "baal", which means owner or master.

We don't need to go to Hebrew for this, but we can stick with English. "husband" < "húsbóndi" = Master (of the house).

Cf. Swedish "husbonde" meaning "master".
The book "Jacques le fataliste et son maître" is called in Swedish "Jakob fatalisten och hans husbonde".

----
Whereas "wife" seems to come from (constructed) "*gʰʷí₂bʰ-" meaning "vulva".

If the noob is being told "those words aren't in wide use", and the noob chooses to believe faceless websites over a forum specializing in the topic, and to argue with people in the forum that faceless websites are right and the forum is wrong -- then I have no idea why this noob is even in the forum, if the noob seems determined to ignore all advice given. If the noob wants to ignore the advice of the people in the forum, then the noob should not come to the forum for advice. The noob should not expect to convince the people in the forum that the noob's websites are right and the forum people's experience in actual Esperantujo is wrong.

-icx- has been around for a decent amount of time and it STILL hasn't caught on. I don't know even one experienced Esperantist who uses it. For other reforms, I know maybe one or two, but for this thing, not even one. This should be a clue to the noob, but the noob would perhaps rather not listen, and instead believe a random list online.

Erinja, I fervently disagree with you that change is possible and firmly agree with you that the fiulo who declares himself better and more knowledgeable than the actual Esperantists has no right even to speak their language. That's all I can really say on the subject. It seems to be the consensus of the forum overall. My mind is not changing on either point.

-iĉ- is probably the only reform proposal that I feel Esperanto would really benefit from. However, it's only when it gains major acceptance that I will start using it myself, as the underlying logic of -iĉ- is simply not compatible with contemporary Esperanto's. I might be wrong, but pacific coexistence of both variants doesn't seem possible to me. If, as an example, some speakers consider patro to mean "father" while others understand it as "parent", wouldn't it be unmanageable?

@erinja
You mentioned several times that reforms of any kind should not come from beginners, but from a base of experienced speakers. Though i don't agree on that totally, the real question, that hunts me is: Which level does one have to reach in order to be "allowed" to propose reforms? And don't you think that the hardcore-Fundamentistoj would reject his/her proposal nevertheless?

yyaann:I might be wrong, but pacific coexistence of both variants doesn't seem possible to me. If, as an example, some speakers consider patro to mean "father" while others understand it as "parent", wouldn't it be unmanageable?

OMG, how often does this has to be repeated? To avoid this inconsistency one can just integrate new words as neutral counterparts to the immanent mal roots like "patro" or "frato" (e.g. "parento" and … urm … i don't know … "vedo" (from Norwegian "ved": "next to" or "aside of"; similar to the english "with" )) and understand the old male words as synonyms for the iĉ-form of the new words (e.g. "patro"="parentiĉo" and "frato"="vediĉo" ).

Fenris_kcf:You mentioned several times that reforms of any kind should not come from beginners, but from a base of experienced speakers. Though i don't agree on that totally, the real question, that hunts me is: Which level does one have to reach in order to be "allowed" to propose reforms?.

I want to reform German and you must follow my concepts unconditionally because I know better:

Get rid of all genders.
Do not use ü,ä,ö and other. Only Roman characters.
... (and hundreds more of such wise improvements)

PS: I have just started to learn German.

bryku:I want to reform German and you must follow my concepts unconditionally because I know better:

Get rid of all genders.
Do not use ü,ä,ö and other. Only Roman characters.
... (and hundreds more of such wise improvements)

PS: I have just started to learn German.

I'm open to any reform, that makes sense, but i'm afraid it's not in my hand to change German.
And for now you didn't propose a reform, but just things, that you consider as flaws.
I'll tell you what: If you give me a fairly good reasons why and how to change these things, i'll support them among all the Germans i know.

… Guess that was not the reaction, you expected.

Fenris_kcf:
I'm open to any reform, that makes sense, but i'm afraid it's not in my hand to change German.
And for now you didn't propose a reform, but just things, that you consider as flaws.
I'll tell you what: If you give me a fairly good reasons why and how to change these things, i'll support them among all the Germans i know.

Replace German with Esperanto and you'll have my reply.