This topic has been covered at some length in this forum.

Part one of my answer is that if Zamenhof had truly meant the regular forms to be exclusively masculine, he should have made much more use of the word ge- when speaking of mixed-gender groups. It would be one thing if he were speaking a Romance language where mixed gender groups are referred to in the masculine. It's quite another if you specifically have a prefix to indicate a mixed gender group, and chose not to use it. It is clear in Esperanto, for example, that "fratoj" means only "brothers" and not "siblings", because if you wanted to say "siblings", you would always say "gefratoj".

Some examples from Zamenhof's writing (chosen at random from the first two works I found that referred to people):

Regarding his poem "Al la Esperantisto", shouldn't it be called "Al la Geesperantistoj"? Because otherwise, wouldn't he only be talking to a male Esperanto speaker? In the same poem, he says "Amikoj de proksime, malproksime, salutas vin, ho nia luma stelo!" Shouldn't that be "geamikoj", or is he saying that only male friends greet the bright star?

In a letter Zamenhof wrote, he said "Por mi persone la plej malagrabla estas nur tio, ke mi nun en Varsovio tute jam ne vidas homojn: mi vidas nur rusojn, polojn, hebreojn"

Does anyone honestly think that he is saying that he sees only men in the streets, no women? And if it's a mixed group, then according to the "male default" logic, shouldn't it be "gehomojn ... gerusojn, gepolojn, gehebreojn"? It seems clear to me that he is treating words like "amiko", "Esperantisto", "homo", "ruso", "polo", etc as being gender neutral.

Part 2 of my response is that the prefix vir- is used to specify a male. So we have "instruisto" (teacher, no gender specified). That becomes "instruistino" or "virinstruisto" if you wish to specify a gender. No one has yet explained to me, to my satisfaction, why using a suffix -iĉ- is preferable to using a prefix vir-. Among the more ridiculous explanations - "It's sexist to have vir- as a prefix and -in- as a suffix because it places men above women, since men get a prefix and women only get a suffix, so by making them both suffixes, we are all equal".

Regarding whether you will be understood using -iĉ-, if you use it online, people will probably understand you, even if they might think you strange, or automatically that assume that you have certain ideas, because you use it. They might assume (rightly or wrongly) that you support all kinds of gender-related language reform ideas (like re-designating "patro" as meaning "parent", then creating "patrino" and "patriĉo" for "mother" and "father") People online tend to have a wider exposure to different ways of speaking and be aware of reformist fads, even if they choose not to follow them. In real life you might not be understood, especially by older Esperanto speakers who are not necessarily aware of these seldom-used newish unofficial suffixes. In any case, with the vir- prefix you will always be understood, as this is the classical usage.

No one has yet explained to me, to my satisfaction, why using a suffix -iĉ- is preferable to using a prefix vir-. Among the more ridiculous explanations - "It's sexist to have vir- as a prefix and -in- as a suffix because it places men above women, since men get a prefix and women only get a suffix, so by making them both suffixes, we are all equal".

I think it'd be better as it'd be more consistent and regular to use two suffixes to show gender, rather than one suffix and one prefix. It also seems to me that you get confusion over whether "vir-" is an actual prefix, or if you're just using the word "viro" as part of a new compound word, which was the original question in this thread. And then you get confusion over whether things like "virkapro" means "faun" or "male goat", as pointed out by Oŝo-Jabe. I've read somewhere else than "virbovo" can mean "bull" and "minotaur", whereas you don't have the same problem with "bovino".

It seems to me that it would have been better if Zamenhof had originally made all regular nouns gender-neutral, and had two suffixes to be used when you want to indicate gender. I think it's disappointing that there are no easy words for "parent", "sibling" or "grandparent" in Esperanto, when it's usually more precise than English and other languages. I've read that this is one of the changes they made in Ido, and I think it's a good one, though from what I've read I think most of the other changes they made make it a worse language.

guyjohnston:I think it'd be better as it'd be more consistent and regular to use two suffixes to show gender, rather than one suffix and one prefix.

That would be lovely in a perfect world. But since the language already has a prefix and a suffix, I don't see a point in creating a new suffix.

The bottom line is that more than 100 years of Esperanto literature already exists, and it uses the vir- prefix. Even if you were to create a new suffix, learners of Esperanto would still have to learn the vir- prefix in order to understand old writings. In new writings, they would *still* need to know the old suffix and new prefix, because some speakers would invariably use the old one (just like some speakers still use -ujo instead of -io for countries) and some speakers would invariably use the new. I am all for adding language elements that are necessary and don't exist yet. But I do not support making old language elements redundant. It only adds to the information load for new learners, rather than simplifying things.

It also seems to me that you get confusion over whether "vir-" is an actual prefix, or if you're just using the word "viro" as part of a new compound word, which was the original question in this thread. And then you get confusion over whether things like "virkapro" means "faun" or "male goat", as pointed out by Oŝo-Jabe. I've read somewhere else than "virbovo" can mean "bull" and "minotaur", whereas you don't have the same problem with "bovino".

Nothing is stopping you from saying "virobovo" to mean "minotaur", or "virokapro" to mean "faun", to make it clear that you are constructing this as a compound word and not as a root plus prefix. If you did that, I think it would be 100% clear. And even if you didn't do that, I think in most cases, context will tell the reader the difference.

hello. my native language is russian.
plz do not be very strict to me, but I think this disscussion is malplena.
let's gaze on your native (english) language. so many troubles I had when I start to learn it! even now after ten years of studing I have problems with some words of phrases. Now I write this and realize how some native english peoples laugh about my poor english. and this is true. I now it. coz sometimes I read forums and posts of people who studing russian language. of course its very bad from my side but some phrases make me laugh sometimes. so you can laugh on my bad english. Your laugh would be pleasure for me. really.

so, sexism. eh, all of these -in, ge- and so on. some "disslogisms" I would say. But look at this! This is old good english. let me begin from writting and pronunciation of words. you know what I mean. don't you? all of these night, late, see, sea, laugh, so, thou, throu, though. do u feel it? let me continue about english sounds. all of these through, though, where, were, ear, air, etc. if whould you know how _very_ hard to say all of these sound for me. believe me, its very hard. In my native language does not exist sound "r" (rest, hair, etc), "th" (those, this, etc), -er, -ar, -ir (star, homer simpson, cleaner, etc).
next. what about words "angle", "strong" and "strenght". why in english one can say "strong human", but not "strong of steel"(I mean "strenght of steel" here). but in the same time one can say "side of an angle" and "angle dispersion", what is angle? noun or adjective?

the main sense of all of this small letters here is: plz understand, if you want, you can find many of dislogisms in ANY language, in any thing in the universe, coz ideal thing is the same as dead thing. nowhere to tend (approach, goal, sorry I dont know word). that is why you cannot find any ideal thing in the whole world. coz all of these thing are dead long ago. and remember, the Perfect World did not, does not, will not exist.

But the FACT is that you can learn esperanto much more fast than any human language. from my point of veiw this is a big chance to spare my time for preparing to international communication. but from your point of view (I mean all native english speaker) this is bad. coz anybody in the world know your language. why should you change anything?! that is why I really respect all native english speakers who learn esperanto. This is very fair from thier side.

thank you very much for reading this, and again, plz do not be very strict to me. whenever do not take it serious.