Update: Apparently, even though some seem to have understood what I meant from the outset, others did not. I'm not going to remove any words, but I'll clarify in brackets, in a few places at length.
I'm de-linking World Magazine's blog, and I'm encouraging anyone who feels strongly enough about this to do the same. There's a fairly reputable view that the English language has no semantically gender-neutral but grammatically masculine terms. I think that's true of the dialects of most people I interact with on a daily basis, though I don't think it's true of every native English speaker. They think the view is false altogether [and have a history of very harsh comments to the effect that those pursuing translations according to this view are pursuing an anti-Christian agenda].
I have no problem with that view [though their language has been way over the top in the past]. I disagree with the views expressed on that site from time to time. That won't stop a link. Most of the sites I link to express views I disagree with. One of the reasons I wanted to link to them is because I really like Gene Veith, who posts there regularly, and Marvin Olasky was the source of what George Bush calls compassionate conservatism, which I think is generally the right sort of view to take and why I like him so much. It really came from George Will, but Bush got it from Olasky. [I should also say that they're one of the best news sources in the Christian blogosphere, largely because of the amount of content.]
[I've had trouble with some of what authors on their site and in their magazine have said in the past, which has now and then seemed a bit too over the top in a way that can easily offend non-believers on non-gospel issues, and this happens way too often for me to consider my links to them to be anything more than tenuous.]
[There's also the issue of the level of trolling that goes on at the site, which I supposed they could do something about but don't consider it as important as I do. They have banned at least one person, a racial segregationist who claims biblical support for his position and converted every discussion to his own pet issues, which was the original reason I de-linked them maybe about a year ago and then linked to them again when they had banned that particular commenter.]
[In my experience, at least on posts that have interested me enough to look at the comments, something like a third of the comments at their site are from people who hate Christians or at least hate evangelicals. Another third maybe consists of reactionary religious right types who have been spoon-fed beliefs and have no arguments to back up what they say. The other third are careful enough thinkers who discuss things reasonably, though not always with views I agree with. The low signal-to-noise ratio in the comments is why my tenuous confidence in linking to them is so easily shaken. This is the second instance when the tenuous nature of my desire to have links to them is broken by something that just goes way too far.]
The reason I've removed my two links to them (in two different categories -- Christian and conservative) is because one of the writers at the site has a post up today equating the somewhat controversial view about language (which is the only issue the people with the magazine differ with the TNIV translators on) with being anti-Christian. [See the comments below for a link to the post. It defeats the purpose of de-linking them if I'm going to link directly to the entry, so the arguments from people who say I should have linked to the post just baffle me.]
[Here is the context for those who don't want to go to the World site to read it yourself. Rolling Stone magazine wouldn't run an ad for the TNIV, claiming it doesn't run religious ads. The religious right complained and called it persecution, insulting millions of genuinely persecuted people. World covered this. Now it turns out Rolling Stone will run the ad after all. At the end of the post giving factual information on this, the World intern said, "Considering the TNIV�s gender-inclusive language, Rolling Stone�s anti-Christian agenda may yet realize some fruit." In context, this seems pretty clearly to indicate that the gender-inclusive language of the TNIV will now ironically be achieving the magazine's anti-Christian agenda even though they had viciously opposed the ad. What follows assumes that interpretation, which seems to me to be by far the most natural one.]
[RazorKiss's comments below and at other sites seem to me to produce an alternate interpretation. It took me reading three different explanations of his interpretation and then directly attempting to read each sentence of the World post in this way to see how the words of the post could possibly mean what he's saying they obviouly mean. I can now see that this is a possible interpretation. If the original author explains that this is what he meant, all that follows is not about his post at all, and I will retract it. I don't expect that that's the case, and most readers of his post seem to agree with me, which makes me think my interpretation is the more natural one. Given the principle of charity, I will wait until the original author has more to say before either retracting or continuing to uphold my comments. More on that as and if it develops.]
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything about whether the English language has gender-neutral pronouns of a certain sort when I look through the Bible to seek to understand the gospel. This kind of division is very close to the kind the New Testament repeatedly condemns, because it raises a dispute that's quite literally about words to the level of the gospel. Unless they apologize for this, I will not promote them as Christian [i.e. I will not send readers from my site, many of whom are not Christians, to that site as one that I will tell them is uncontroversially representative of Christianity], because their site's portrayal of what the gospel is just doesn't coincide with what the Christian gospel really is [not that I'm saying they don't believe the gospel, just that there's a clear statement there that unintentionally implies something at odds with the content of the gospel, according to what seems to me to be the most natural interpretation].