Mendacapote:I personally like the way Esperanto is spoken nowadays, but somehow regret the trend to avoid the use of the –in- suffix.

I think this is an issue of cultural assumptions. Among the Esperanto speakers who don't use -in- except for emphasis, I don't think they view it as "avoiding" the -in- suffix. At least for myself, I don't see it as avoidance at all. Rather, you don't even think to add the -in- suffix, it doesn't even enter your mind, unless you are emphasizing a gender for some reason.
I would have to think hard to always use the -in- ending, even if I wanted to. In addition, every time I called someone a "kuracistino" or an "instruistino", I would wonder to myself if I'm not implying that there's something remarkable about a woman being a doctor or a teacher, or if gender somehow matters in how good a job the doctor or teacher does.

I think the -in- also forces you to think constantly about gender, if you truly want to use it for all females. You must always know the gender of an animal before speaking about that animal. You must always know the gender of a person before speaking about them. Furthermore, you must be scrupulous about using ge- every time you're talking about both genders, otherwise you are referring only to males. So if someone has dogs, male and female - they have "gehundoj" not just "hundoj". You can't just speak of "usonanoj", you have to speak of "geusonanoj". Not just "kongresanoj" (that's men only!) but "gekongresanoj". I think my brain might explode from the cognitive strain if I had to keep all of the genders straight in my head like that.

I understand that for people who speak highly gendered languages, it may be obvious that female doctors are different from male doctors, but to me, as a native English speaker, it doesn't make sense at all.

So the -in- may make sense to Europeans, and it may be difficult for them to leave it out (just as it is difficult for me to put it in) but not every language is so heavily gendered. Esperanto has relatively free word order, so speakers of different native languages can feel free to use a word order that feels comfortable to them. It makes sense that -in- would work in the same way. Speakers of Romance languages can feel free to put -in- all over the place like there's no tomorrow. Speakers of less gendered languages can feel free to use it only when they think it's truly important. Just as Esperanto speakers of all languages will understand various word orders, I think that Esperanto speakers are smart enough also to understand various ways of using -in-.

awake:Well, you may be correct, and it's impossible to say with certainty. However, if we look at what has happened to english in recent decades, we see a similar phenomenon. When I was a lad, there were firemen. Now, there are firefighters. Policemen and police women became police officers, etc... These changes (still ongoing - change is slow were definitely driven by gender equality issues.

Yep, also garbageman versus garbage collector, housewife versus "stay at home mom" or "stay at home dad" (or "stay at home parent") - "househusband" doesn't quite sound right! This kind of stuff goes way back in English, it isn't just a modern phenomenon. I don't think a form like "Jewess" (as opposed to "Jew" for both men and women) has been used in my lifetime *or* that of my parents, and actually it has a racist quality to it, to my ear, even though it's just "Jew" with a feminine ending.

Vidu 51.-ULO :

http://en.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/seppik/lec07...

You must always know the gender of a person before speaking about them.

But you DO have to know that, at least in English (he vs she). If I'm talking about the doctor's stetoscope, I have to say his or hers. In French, it is son stétoscope regardless.

I do find it weird that feminin nouns would just add this affixe where masculin just don't have anything as oppose to using a different one, but I do find it normal for there to be a difference between the 2.

I don't think a form like "Jewess" (as opposed to "Jew" for both men and women) has been used in my lifetime and actually it has a racist quality to it, to my ear, even though it's just "Jew" with a feminine ending.

Since for me this actually just looks like jewels with a typo, it actually has a nice ring to it!

Islander:

You must always know the gender of a person before speaking about them.

But you DO have to know that, at least in English (he vs she). If I'm talking about the doctor's stetoscope, I have to say his or hers. In French, it is son stétoscope regardless.

Why couldn't you say their's, rather then his or hers? Even when I know the sex of a person, I will use a non-sex specific adjective. I find the only time I use a sex specific adjective is when I'm talking about two or more people who happen to be of a different sex.
I once talked about one of my old teachers to my fiancée, and it wasn't till the end of me talking did they realize I was talking about a female - and that was only because I mentioned that my father thought they were hot.

I do find it weird that feminin nouns would just add this affixe where masculin just don't have anything as oppose to using a different one, but I do find it normal for there to be a difference between the 2.

I find that odd as well. To me it would make more sense. Then again it made sense to someone else to have it this way.

Mythos:

I do find it weird that feminin nouns would just add this affixe where masculin just don't have anything as oppose to using a different one, but I do find it normal for there to be a difference between the 2.

I find that odd as well. To me it would make more sense. Then again it made sense to someone else to have it this way.

It depends on what language you come from. I am not sure but I think German might just add a feminine ending. Doktor/doktorin, etc.

Romance languages tend to use something more like two completely separate suffixes. Dottore/dottoressa, professore/professoressa, lavoratore/lavoratrice.

Although theoretically, you could say that in Esperanto -o is a masculine ending and -ino is feminine, since (classically) the 'generic' form was masculine.

I think that even if you're fairly traditional, though, the -in- is still somewhat optional. The PMEG is (of course) Bertilo Wennergren's opinion on grammar but he doesn't think that it's required to add the -in- ending to words like "instruisto", though in most respects he is quite traditional in language usage (always uses the -ujo form for countries; "Francujo", not "Francio", and does not combine the -int- and -us endings as is now common; he would say "Mi estus devinta veni", not "Mi devintus veni")

Anyone whose Esperanto is good enough (or who feels like sitting there with a dictionary) may be interested to read the page in the PMEG that deals with this issue:

http://www.bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/o-vortoj/se...

And actually, after reading this page (which I haven't looked at in a couple years), I'm reminded that this issue is actually more complex than I had supposed it to be previously. I think it's an interesting read, whether you personally choose to make extensive use of the -in- ending or not.