Problems with Gender-Inclusive Language

One large argument against translating Scripture in gender-inclusive language (e.g. 'children' or 'sons and daughters' so as to include both males and females when the original text reads 'sons') is that in many passages it obscures the biblical theological links to Christ.  Burke makes a similar point in regards to adoption language:

In the ancient Graeco-Roman world both sons and daughters could be adopted, although the latter was less common, as daughters could not continue the line. Thus when I use 'sons' I am not excluding daughters, and this is perhaps reflected in Paul's movement in Rom. 8 from 'sons' (huioi, v. 14) to 'children' (tekna, v. 16). At the same time, Paul's preference for the term 'sons' in the adoption texts makes us aware that he lived in patriarchal society. His use of 'sons' in this context makes it clear that sons were not only the usual subjects for adoption but that they also stand as respresentatives of females. The NRSV translation of the Greek word huiou (v. 14) as 'children' muddies the waters and obscures this issue. This is because Paul wishes to make the point that our adoption as sons is dependent on Jesus as Son of God, and Rom. 8:12-17 is deliberately sandwiched between two references to Jesus as the Son of God (cf. Rom. 8:3, 29). Our adoption as God's sons is inextricably tied to God's Son; hence to translate huiou (sons) as 'children' in v. 14 blurs this important point.