All the comments comparing the -in- suffix with the mal- prefix are highly specious, because when you're talking about people, rather than abstract concepts like height and truth, there aren't two opposing sides. There are three: male, female and neuter.

It's true that languages can't make people sexist, but they can support sexist assumptions that have become rooted in the culture. The PMEG page on -iĉ- has a good example of this: it cites words like "patro" and "knabo" as being male in their unmarked position, but the word "putino" is female! Are there no male whores in the world? I sense an entrepreneurial opportunity...

The automatic attribution of gender to human roles is not a universal, it is culturally-bound. Esperanto is therefore sabotaging its own internationality by having the root-word for "parent" mean "father" and not, as would be more logical, "parent." Look at the tortuous pains natural languages must go through nowadays in order to form gender-neutral sentences: "his/her", "latino/a", "étudiant(e)" and so on. These gendered forms are anachronisms; shouldn't Esperanto jettison them? How can a "modern" language not have a word simply meaning "spouse"?

It's true that it is quite a change, but not a structural one. Until it's generally accepted, you could avoid the unmarked root altogether, using ge-, -iĉ- and -in- where necessary.

It's true that Esperanto is no more sexist than ethnic languages, but wouldn't it be nice if it were less sexist than the ethnic languages?

huplescat:There are three: male, female and neuter.

You are forgetting dual

It's true that languages can't make people sexist, but they can support sexist assumptions

Esperanto gives enough tools to choose other ways to express yourself. A language is not sexist. Its usage or speakers can be.

it cites words like "patro" and "knabo" as being male in their unmarked position

"martel-" is a noun root while "bel-" is an adjective root. Why?

Have you ever had founding mothers?

but the word "putino" is female! Are there no male whores in the world?

ĉiesulo? (my dictionary also mentions "ĝigolo")

Esperanto is therefore sabotaging its own internationality

Esperanto is as international as it could be in its time. There is no trace of asian and/or african word roots. If a Chinese man learns it and uses it, would you say that he's an eurocentric?

"parent."

"generinto".

These gendered forms are anachronisms

There are no more genders? Wow!

How can a "modern" language not have a word simply meaning "spouse"?

"geedzo" (or more traditionally "unu el la geedzoj")?

In Italian there is a very marked difference between sentimental love and parental love. English does not have this. A friend of mine once told me that it's inconceivable for him that such a terribly important distinction cannot be made in English.

It's a matter of what you are used to say.

Until it's generally accepted, you could avoid the unmarked root altogether, using ge-, -iĉ- and -in- where necessary.

Nobody asys that you shouldn't. I am merely saying that you are not automatically sexist if you stick to the traditional usage of the language.

It's true that Esperanto is no more sexist than ethnic languages, but wouldn't it be nice if it were less sexist than the ethnic languages?

If there will ever be proof that by learning Esperanto you acquire a stronger inclination toward sexism ("attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles"), then I will support your position. My 10+ years experience among crowds of speakers from all over the world tells me a very different story.

Amike.

As mnlg mentioned, "ĉiesulino" is a more common word than "putino", and you could just as easily make it "ĉiesulo" for a male version.

Interestingly, however, if you really wanted to argue that the use of "putino" as a female root is sexist against women - one might argue that it is equally sexist against men, since it implies that men are the ones who mostly go around paying for sex. Also, one must admit that even though there are some male prostitutes around, female prostitutes are more common.

I have not noticed a difference in sexist behavior between Esperanto speakers who use the "traditional" forms of the language, and those who go out of their way to use the -iĉ- suffix, etc.

Congratulations, Mnlg, on entirely misrepresenting all of my arguments.

If there will ever be proof that by learning Esperanto you acquire a stronger inclination toward sexism ("attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles"), then I will support your position.

This is the exact opposite of what I said, which was:

It's true that languages can't make people sexist, but they can support sexist assumptions that have become rooted in the culture.

In order to clarify things for you, let me spell my points out slowly:

1. I never suggested that there were "no more genders." I said that there is today a general recognition in society that it is no longer useful to apply gender-roles to every human attribute, and that Esperanto is in a good position to adjust itself slightly in order to better resemble these modern ways of thinking. What you're suggesting is that, rather than making a simple change in the vocabulary, we create circuitous new words like "generinto."

2. It simply makes more logical sense for the neutral form to be unmarked while the gendered forms are both marked.

Nobody asys that you shouldn't. I am merely saying that you are not automatically sexist if you stick to the traditional usage of the language.

But I never suggested that. So why are we arguing? You talk your way and I'll talk mine.

Also, Erinja:

Also, one must admit that even though there are some male prostitutes around, female prostitutes are more common.

You live a very sheltered life.

huplescat:Congratulations, Mnlg, on entirely misrepresenting all of my arguments.

Thanks. I suppose some kind of skill is needed for that.

It's true that languages can't make people sexist, but they can support sexist assumptions that have become rooted in the culture.

I don't think esperanto "supports". It is the other way round. The past state of things has made esperanto the way it is. However Esperanto, IMO, does not perpetuate it.

As I said there are lots of words to choose from if you really want to be as generic as possible (and you could even try to propose your own, who knows, they might come to be accepted).

In order to clarify things for you, let me spell my points out slowly:

T h a n k y o u.

1. I never suggested that there were "no more genders." I said that there is today a general recognition in society that it is no longer useful to apply gender-roles to every human attribute,

I do not see this general recognition as clearly as you do. Also the way I see it, "gender roles" is an issue in the mind of the speaker first, and in the emphasis given through the language only late second.

What you're suggesting is that, rather than making a simple change in the vocabulary, we create circuitous new words like "generinto."

I find "malsanulejo" or "transpagipova" way more circuitous (is "circuitous" a circuitous word?) than "generinto" (and it's not really "created" any more than any other compound word, or just any word for that matter; also, my dictionary mentions it). I am not exactly suggesting anything, I am trying to show you that Esperanto has ways to be more neutral than you claim it is.

2. It simply makes more logical sense for the neutral form to be unmarked while the gendered forms are both marked.

Yes. It also makes more logical sense that "j" be replaced with an "i" with a brevis sign on top of it (or "ŭ" be replaced with "w"). And it makes more logical sense that "c" be dropped in favor of "ts". If you strive for logic in language I strongly suggest you to tackle lojban.

So why are we arguing?

I am not arguing, I am conversating.

Languages evolve. Perhaps one day esperanto will have morphed into what you want it to be. I guess I prefer to wait for some kind of recognition first. I am content with learning a language; I don't necessarily have to reinvent it. I find this push for reform and revision in many beginners and intermediate speakers. I went through that phase too, out of sheer enthusiasm, but a friend dissuaded me from that. Later, with time, I learned to accept the language as it is; I guess that a deeper knowledge of its workings and vocabulary has helped in that.

Also, Erinja:

Also, one must admit that even though there are some male prostitutes around, female prostitutes are more common.

You live a very sheltered life.

Thanks for your kind compliment. I have always liked to think that the roof on my house was quite effective, and I must say, it has never ever leaked on me as I slept.

Percentages of male prostitutes vary by country, state, and city. In the US, estimates of percent of male prostitutes usually range from 25-30% or so. I would call that a female-dominated profession.

Mohawk is a feminine-centric language, where an unmarked word is either neutral or feminine, and the marked word is masculine. For example:

"The women are climbing it"
Yonón:kwe kontiráthens
(lit. they-fem-are-people they-are-climbing-it)

"The dogs are climbing it"
Erharokón:'a kontiráthens
(lit. dogs they-are-climbing-it)

"The men are climbing it"
Ronón:kwe ratiráthens
(lit. they-masc-are-people they-masc-are-climbing-it)

Notice that the women and the dogs take the unmarked verb prefix "konti-" (which refers to women, animals, objects, etc.) and the men take the marked prefix "rati-" which refers to male beings specifically.

Here’s something that I have heard a number of times in various Mohawk language classes from people outside the culture: "Isn't the language sexist because it is lumping women together with everything else? Why are men special enough to deserve their own prefix?" Ironic, eh?

Back to Esperanto. "Isn't the language sexist because it is lumping men together with everything else? Why are women special enough to deserve their own suffix?"

In all languages, there are grammatically unmarked forms and marked forms. Semantically (at least historically), the unmarked forms are the more generic and usual, hence English "male-nurse" (more marked because of the male- prefix) or aviatrix (more marked because of the -ix suffix).

As times change, what is generic and usual changes. Consequently, we would expect that the unmarked forms would take on the meanings of the new "usual". Thus instruisto could be perceived as neutral, as opposed to the more marked forms virinstruisto/instruistiĉo and instruistino, if this is "usual" in that society. I can only speak for my society, but words like "doctor" are certainly now gender neutral, and if I want to specifically refer to a male medical professional, I would have to come up with something like "male-doctor".

When looking at kinship terminology, the masculine is unmarked in Esperanto. Patro (unmarked), Patrino (marked), gepatro (marked). I would say, in my own conversation, the terms "mother" and "father" are certainly more common than "parent" ("parents" being more useful than "parent"). Same goes for "sister" and "brother" over "sibling". The gender-neutral meaning would be a poor candidate for the unmarked because of its far less common occurrance. So, it's a coin toss between which kinship term, "father" or "mother" gets to be the unmarked form. For Esperanto (and most other Western languages), it ended up that masculine is less marked than feminine. In Iroquoian languages, it ended up the opposite.

Yes, if a language can be said to be inherently sexist, than Esperanto is sexist. But language has little choice to be otherwise. Language is first and foremost economical: the semantically more common terms are the simplest (unmarked). It is uneconomical to have unmarked gender neutral kinship terms. So a gender-distinguishing language has to pick one or the other gender for the unmarked form.

languagegeek:Yes, if a language can be said to be inherently sexist, than Esperanto is sexist. But language has little choice to be otherwise. [...]

This is a great point. Thank you for your contribution.

Melequíades:In English exists the solution to say "they" to mean a singular person but sexually unmarked.

Although the use of "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is VERY widespread, I don't believe it is (yet) considered correct English. Sort of like "can I do x?" really meaning "may I do x?" - everyone says it, but grammarians will still have a conniption about it.

RiotNrrd:Although the use of "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is VERY widespread, I don't believe it is (yet) considered correct English.

Complete the following sentence:

"Something or someone broke into my house last night and I won't rest until I catch ____!"

I have been taught (by a native speaker) that the most neutral answer for this is "them", even if the subject is, in theory, singular.

Should I reconsider?