According to the Prezento de Riismo, in Riismo:
* The pronoun ri replaces the pronouns li and ŝi. One does not use the pronouns li and ŝi.
* The suffix -iĉ- is used symmetrically with the suffix -in-. One uses them only in order to emphasize the sex or specify it, when necessary.
* Generally roots without a suffix -iĉ- or -in- do not indicate a sex. Also the twenty words, which traditionally indicate only males, and which have corresponding female forms with the attached -in-, must be treated as sexless. However, if there is danger of confusion, for example when speaking to a liisto, one may attach the prefix ge-, with neither of the suffixes -iĉ- or -in- used. For example, dentisto is dentistiĉo or dentistino; (ge)patro is patriĉo or patrino.
What do you think? I'm not quite sure what my stance on this issue is. I used to be very opposed to this, because things like this would possibly open the floodgates for more so-called "reforms" such as the horrid proposal that the diacritics be eliminated or the proposal that the accusative case be eliminated. But now I seemed to have become quite neutral to this particular issue. At first I thought the idea of getting rid of the "he" and "she" words to be a little ridiculous, but then I realized that both Finnish and Chinese don't differentiate between "he" and "she". But I disagree with the assumption that -o means something male, because it does not. There are certain words in which the -o ending does mean something male, but most words that end in -o can mean both something male or female. For example, patro means "father" but "instruisto" can mean a male or female teacher. That's how I've always understood it. I rarely use the -in- suffix and I advise one to avoid the usage of -in- when it is not necessary. Esperanto is a genderless language, despite what some claim. So I guess I'm currently neutral about this issue.