The proper term is cis-host.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m still confused about “barista.” That is actually gender-neutral isn’t it? But clearly it sounds gendered…
He may have meant the female member of a couple should be asked about seating arrangements in this case. But really he should know the names of his hosts to avoid that kind of confusion.
I don’t see these words as sexist except if there’s an assumption that a woman in the same role is different than a man. ‘Murderess’ sounds archaic in Mecan, but is there some connotation other than specifying a woman as someone who committed a serious crime?
It sounds like a female barrister.
It’s Italian for bartender.
Doesn’t sound gendered to me, but I guess I can understand why it might. But I think of words like Sandinista and fashionista, which don’t feel gendered to me, either.
Bring back brewster, executrix, baxter, seamstress, spinster. Bring them back I say!!! 
Goddess save the Monarch.
Strawperson.
Wouldn’t that be “strawmaness”? No need to get racist here.
For a perspective from a completely different language – In Spanish, gendered words are more or less mandatory. There is no way to hide the gender of the person you are talking about if you talk for more than a couple minutes, unless you engage in really big linguistic contortions that require a lot of mental effort.
And it is interesting to see that the Spanish language has been in recent years adding new gendered words for a lot of occupations which, until a relatively short time ago, were referred to using only one form which was (by default) male. For example: “presidenta” (=female president) or “ministra” (=female minister) in addition to the previously existent (and morphologically male) “presidente” or “ministro”.
Before, the usual convention was to use the male form as common for both, but with time it was considered better to add the female forms to the vocabulary.
Why not create a “neutral” form? I guess it has to do with the fact that Spanish grammar forces you to use gender anyway, and “neuter” is not one of them. Neutral words are rather “anti natural” when you look at the grammar, structure and morphology of Spanish.
And Spanish women, in my experience, prefer people to use the female-gendered variant of a word. I had a conversation about this subject once with my friend who works as a neurologist in a Spanish hospital and she basically said, “In that hypothetical case I would be, like: 'oh, so, you call me ‘doctor’? Are you implying that this job can be only done by men? I am a ‘doctora’, and don’t you forget it!”
Going to the “murderer/murderess” thing, in Spanish, to say “Ella es un asesino” sounds positively weird. It is “Ella es una asesina”. As I mentioned, it is how Spanish works at a deep level.
And when addressing groups of people, the standard in Spanish is that you use masculine forms if the group is composed only of men or is mixed; feminine forms are used only if the group is composed only of women. Addressing a potential group of readers as “Dear readers” is usually done by writing “Queridos Lectores”.
However, there was a tendency to consider that as sexist, so some people began to write “Queridos lectores y queridas lectoras”, but that is cumbersome.
Which is why you will see sometimes people writing “Querid@s lector@s”, creating a kind of “neutral” expression that is not so much a new word but an abbreviation of the long expression by means of the “@” character, which is used as shorthand to express “o” and “a” at the same time (“o” generally being the morphological marker for masculine, and “a” for feminine).
Personally I think that it looks silly but I can understand the dilemma.
Anyway – this was a borderline hijack, but I wanted to present the perspective of a language that does things rather differently from English in this respect.
TL;DR: Whereas English is eliminating gendered words that relate to occupations in order to mitigate sexism in language, Spanish is doing the opposite for exactly the same reason.
Actually, it varies wildly, as choosing one form or another emphasizes one part over another. Also, sometimes the choice of gender forces a choice in other words which gets confusing: I tend to present myself as ingeniero (not ingeniera), on one hand because I want to emphasize the degree/line of work, and on the other because for some reason people have even more trouble understanding ingeniera química than ingeniero químico. It’s as if they can’t make up their mind whether ingeniera is modifying química or vice versa (both can be nouns); with the traditional forms they know that químico (which is never a noun) modifies ingeniero.
Note also that refusing to use someone’s preferred form is a common method to demean them, and that whenever a professional woman is going to be attacked on her appearance rather than on professional things, the form used is the feminine. Nobody who is going to criticize an engineer for not smiling enough will say ingeniero, nobody who is going to criticize a judge for her dress will say la señora juez.
(And Queridos lectores would only have one capital, Mr I Spend Too Much Time Speaking German!)
Especially one who is a stewardess.
Beware the temptations of the jewess temptress.
As you say, jefa 
And, about speaking German too much, what can I say, but ORDNUNG MUSS SEIN!!! ^.^
(Joking, joking…)
It’s amusing that gendered words which have negative connotations for men always seem to go unchallenged in these conversations. For all the efforts to change fireman to fire fighter, words like hit-man, gunman, and garbageman are pretty safe from revision 
Garbagemen want to be called “sanitation engineers”. (Which really ticks off people who spent years in college working their tails off to get an engineering degree.)
By Biggus Dickus?!
The whole thing is mostly political correctness, though there are examples that have smoothly integrated themselves into the language. And there are ones that technically exists, but nobody ever really uses. I still always say ‘fireman’ mostly because I have never, not even once, seen a female firefighter, in person or on the news.
Sometime in the 90s Hollywood issued an edict deciding that ‘actress’ was to be no longer used. I find it amusing that The Academy Awards still hasn’t seemed to have gotten the memo (i.e. Best Actor / Best Actress).
As far as ‘murderess’ goes, it’s just an anachronism from ole’ timey days. Back when polite society didn’t want to think about women being capable of murder, so much so that they had to give it its own special name*!* A less negative example would be the old term for a female pilot, an aviatrix. Some may say it was sexist (and it certainly would be if used non-comically today), but you could also say it emphasized the idea that female pilots had become common enough that now there was an actual term for them.
Strawperchild, I think you’ll find.
Prior to that, when you heard the term “aviator,” did you think “A male human who flies a plane”? Or did you just think, “Someone who flies a plane”?
It’s tricky, because part of the agenda (and yes, I have an agenda, I don’t think I’ve ever hidden that) is to get folks to pay attention to a person for what they do, not for whether their plumbing is indoors or outdoors. But in order to do that, we have to pay attention to the underlying assumptions we’re making when we talk.
If a particular word implies masculinity, I am a bit :dubious: but not super-so–waiter and actor are pretty commonly used to refer to men and not women. But even then, the plural magically becomes gender-neutral; and if the plural is gender-neutral, I’d just as soon treat the singular as gender-neutral. Unless it’s important to point out WITHIN THE WORD the sex of the person you’re talking about, doing so is not a great idea.
I’m Irish, not British, but I don’t think the term is common in British English.
The OED has only one modern cite, from 1992, and that’s in the plural, taken from a piece about characteristics which distinguish women who murder from men who murder. In that context you can see the theoretical utility of a word like “murderess” but, even then, it sounds mannered and archaic.