This is an actual letter I sent a few years ago that got published elsewhere, but not on the Reagan Wing. I share it now for your edification and personal growth.
Dear Running Times,
I just read a running shoe review wherein you used the word “craftspersonship” in describing the construction of a shoe.
Of course, it goes without saying, you had to remove the chauvinistic “craftsmanship” because it contained the sexist word “man,” but in doing so you made a common mistake by using a word containing the word “person.” You see, the word “person” contains the sexist word “son,” clearly also male. Instead of “person” you might simply repeat the first half of the sub-word (“per”) which is neutral and acceptable. So you could, then, praise or deplore a shoe’s “crafts-per-per-ship.” You might, however, find that some, there at Running Times, object to the unfamiliarity of the term “per-per” or it’s tendency to sound ridiculous and infantile, so you might be tempted to try some common alternatives, like “crafts-someone-ship,” “crafts-mortal-ship,” or “crafts-homo-sapiens-ship,” (which sound ridiculous but not infantile) but we strongly recommend against it. You see, although those sub-words are not racist or sexist, you run into the kinds of problems that usually follow from using words that actually mean something (as opposed to nonsense phrases like “per-per”). In this case those words are species-ist. They apply presumptively to human beings (or should I say hu-per beings?) and, thus discriminate against other life forms like skunks and rats. If you must attempt to use words that mean things we recommend “crafts-organism-ship,” but caution should always be taken when speaking intelligibly, it is so easy to offend. If you say “per-per,” by contrast, you won’t be making a “boo-boo.”