It is fashionable for special interest groups to take biased positions; otherwise, their financial supporters bail out. So, CBMW's position was sadly predictable.
So far I find the gender decisions in NIV 2011 to be quite reasonable with no evidence of "gender neutering." I also find that the NIV 2011 is a considerable improvement over NIV 1984 because it is considerably more restrained in introducing interpretation into the translation. For example NIV 2011 has abandoned the idea of translating the Greek sarx with the phrase "sinful nature," one of the worst ideas NIV 1984 expressed.
For the moment, I consider NIV 2011 to be neck and neck with ESV in the tradeoff between clarity and fidelity to the original text. The NET Bible is also good. Pastors and scholars should continue to evaluate NIV 2011 and spurn the efforts of special interests like CBMW. I think NIV 2011 will easily stand up to the scrutiny if given a fair chance.
More information about formatting options