"Work the ticket booth" is of course an easy swap. But I've spent four decades speaking a language that is changing much faster than I am. Habits - like what words I reach for - are inertial.

And the word "human" in that context is awkward, IMHO. I would go for "person," although my example above is sufficiently different. "Mankind" turns to "humankind," but there's still the three letter combination in there, "huMAN." For some, I assume, this is an issue. Not trying to be contrary, I'm just trying to gather more insight, since I live in a tiny town full of old conservative people. :-)

Also, the words "androptypical" and "estrotypical" were bestowed upon me not too long ago from someone who hated pronouns - all pronouns - passionately. I understand when a person is or identifies as something other than they appear to me to be, but at the same time, descriptors are useful. If there are two people standing next to each other, one androtypical and one estrotypical, and I want to direct my partner's attention to one of them for some reason, I will say "that man," or "him." That androtypical person may be a woman, or on their way to being a woman, or they may identify as non-binary or gender-fluid. But until I know that - at which time I will respect that person's wishes and call them what they want - it's efficient and expedient to refer to them in the way that is familiar (and acceptable) to most people. (By thy way, how's this missive for inefficient and inexpedient?)