The Contemporary Torah is not a gender-inclusive translation. It aims to be gender-accurate, which is something else. As already noted, a gender-accurate translation does not pass judgment on how the source text constructed gender, but seeks to be as gender-inclusive or as gender-specific as the source text is, no more, no less.
Translators today face issues that were relatively unknown in previous times and places. It used to be acceptable to render male-gendered Hebrew language the intent of which, it is clear from context, was gender-inclusive, by equally male English language capable of a gender-inclusive sense.
It isn’t any more.
People have been impacted by the tremendous fuss around questions of language and gender promoted by people on both the left and the right, and are therefore likely to misread male language when used generically, as if it applied to people of the male gender only.
This is a depressing situation for someone who loves the power of language to describe things with terminology that is more than strictly referential. I love gendered language that is used in inclusive ways. For example, in this part of the Midwest, it’s not uncommon to hear one teenage girl address a group of fellow teenage girls with the expression, “Hey, guys!” It’s also possible, in certain contexts, to encourage a male with the following expression, “You go, girl!” The allusivity of this language is wonderful.
I detest the notion that anything should be changed in the famous statement by astronaut Neil Armstrong, which goes like this:
That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.
I would be irked no end by someone who thought it necessary to revise this to:
That’s one small step for a human being, one great leap for humankind.
The trouble with this “translation” is that it diminishes the degree to which Armstrong’s statement resumes and continues all other examples in English letters in which the achievements of ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ are touched upon. It also impoverishes the text’s prosody, another no-no.
In the world of my dreams, feminists would defend the use of male-gendered and female-gendered language in allusive, inconclusive, and inclusive ways. They would be the first to recognize that the language is impoverished if a word like ‘man’ is banned from being used in an inclusive sense.
In the world of my dreams, even anti-feminist theologians would highlight rather rather than downplay the degree to which male-gendered language in the biblical languages is used inclusively.
There’s only one problem: my dream world does not exist. In the real world, my friend Debbie may call herself a 'fireman,' but her union avoids the term, and calls everyone 'firefighters.' In the real world, Vladimir Putin is 'Person of the Year,' whereas I would prefer to call that person, even if it were Hillary Clinton, 'Man of the Year.'
If possible, the controversy around the use of gendered language in reference to God is even more polarized. On the one hand – among both feminists and anti-feminists - you have people claiming that the deity in the Bible is male, without quotation marks. On the other hand, you have people who claim, as I do, that all language referred to God is figurative to one degree or another, and that in translation, the attempt should be made to be, in this respect as well, as gender-specific as the source text is, no more, no less.
How does The Contemporary Torah handle
this issue? I offer examples in my next post.
 As pointed out on NASA’s website, at the time of the mission, the world heard Armstrong say "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind." As Andrew Chaikin reports in A Man on the Moon, after the mission, Armstrong said that he had intended to say 'one small step for a man.' However, he also agreed that the 'a' didn't seem to be audible in the recordings. The important point is that the world had no problem understanding his meaning. Over the decades, people interested in details of the mission have listened repeatedly to the recordings, without hearing any convincing evidence of the 'a'. In 2006, journalist / entrepreneur Peter Shann Ford claimed to have located the 'a' in the waveform of Armstrong's speech. Subsequently, more rigorous analyses of the transmission were undertaken. As of October 2006, none of these analyses support Ford's conclusion.