I think what cooled me off quickly with the TNIV was some dumb choices they made in that first NT that came out in 2002, such as the verse in Hebrews where they changed God from "Father" to "Parent", the word for that is "stupid". They fed the fires of opposition and by the time they corrected such blunders in 2005 with the release of the entire Bible the damage was largely done. I still disagree with several changes they made from the 1984 NIV, but I don't think it is the horrible Bible version it got labeled as. For the most part it is a worthwhile translation, and the gender language is no different than the changes you find in: NLT, NCV, GNB, NRSV, CEV.
The problem is that many Christians have not considered the NIV/TNIV as a Functional Equivalence Bible. And the fact is that the NIV is the bestselling Bible, thus the TNIV was set to take its place. Zondervan and their translators largely blundered everything with the TNIV, from pointing out the obvious, that females were as much part of the hearing audience as males, and that Jesus was dealing with the culture of the time, and that does not necessarily mean that He would speak in the exact same way today, or even the same to a different audience. For instance, if Jesus was telling the parable of the sower to Native American people of the 18th century, you can be sure He would have used the feminine noun/pronoun as females did all the planting in that culture. I wonder if we can carry such cultural differences to extreme if we insist on them in today's Bible versions? I also invite you to look at Matt. 5:9 comparing the KJV to the ESV. The KJV has "children" while the ESV has "sons", should newer Bibles seem more exclusive than the KJV? Also compare psa. 127:3 in the KJV and HCSB, again, the modern version has "sons" while the KJV has "children" --why be more exclusive than the KJV? It can be carried to extreme. And consider that we do not use masculine nouns and pronouns in a generic sense in modern English. It does no damage to scripture to refer to the general audience and stop requiring women to translate these masculine nouns and pronouns in their heads when we all know the Lord addressed women and men.
Zondervan and the CBT need to better explain these things, and if they 'cave' and lose the gender inclusiveness, that will be just about as bad for their translation. Just my two cents.
Ben