> (e.g., inherent sexism in vocabulary), and since it's invented, you can't shrug it off with "historical baggage" Introduction of Esperanto: 1887 Formation of

> (e.g., inherent sexism in vocabulary), and since it's invented, you can't shrug it off with "historical baggage" Introduction of Esperanto: 1887 Formation of the International Alliance of Women: 1904 Women's suffrage in the US: 1920 I think this kind of dismisses the claim that Esperanto cannot have historical baggage. For Esperanto one could even claim that it is a way of making it easier by having neuter and masculine to be identical - just for like most other languages on could interpretations that make it equal, pro men or pro women ("they have their special form"). However I agree that a neutral form would probably even make it easier to talk/communicate in many situations. One also has to differentiate Ido and Esperanto there. While Esperanto sees the language as set into stone it's most famous and related competitor, Ido is evolving, so one could pick that up in such a case and still be pretty good with Esperanto. And one last thing: What's important about a standard is that there is one that people use an not that it's perfect. See UTF-8 vs competitors and similar. Esperanto is also primarily meant as an auxiliary language, which I think has the strong point of not manipulating society through language. Many Esperanto speakers are actually in deference of other and especially not widely used languages, also because of the reason of especially the mother tongue defining how people think. Disclaimer: I am not an Esperanto speaker, even though I was interested as a teenager.