The SBC, the NIV and Gender Inclusive translation

In today's news the Southern Baptist Convention has issued a resolution condemning the New International Version because of it's recent gender inclusive updates.  Here is the actual resolution. 
Note that this has to do with rendering biblical texts into English where the clear intent is to include both men and women.  This is not about changing the gender references to God or Jesus.  This is not about changing "Father" to "Parent."  This is also not about changing texts where the intent is clearly masculine specific.  If Jesus speaks about a man getting beaten on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho, gender inclusive translations render it "man."  This is about verses that clearly are intended to include both men and women.  For instance, no one imagines that 2 Corinthians 5:17 is referring to exclusively to men ("If any man is in Christ...." KJV).  So a gender inclusive translation will render it, "If anyone is in Christ" or something like that (NIV, NRSV, ESV).  This and this alone is what this controversy is about. 
Several issues regarding this controversy have me concerned. 
First it seems odd that the SBC would single out the NIV when other English translations of the Bible, such as the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, and (to a lessor extent) the English Standard Version all also use gender inclusive translation strategies.  Why single out the NIV?  Could it be because the NIV holds the market's share of sales in the evangelical world (and presumably in the SBC as well)?  Could it have anything to do with the SBC's purchase and completion of the Holman Christian Standard Bible and hopes that more and more SBC churches will encourage their members to purchase the HCSB?  Perhaps I'm just suspicious; perhaps not. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, whatever the inadequacies of the NIV (and there are many), attempting to be gender inclusive is not one of them.  One would think that D. A. Carson's 1998 Gender Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism would have put the issue to rest.  Carson's conservative evangelical credentials are unquestionable.  In this important text he points out that what is at stake here is accuracy and fidelity to the biblical text.  Rendering passages that use gender exclusive language in their form but are gender inclusive in their function as gender exclusive is simply bad translation theory.  Since the English language has available to it gender inclusive forms (e.g., people, humanity, mortal, etc.), why would we render such verses in gender exclusive forms when gender inclusive alternatives are available to us? 
Finally, this points to the continued politicizing of gender in evangelicalism.  Gender inclusive translation has been hijacked by politics.  Specifically, people afraid of what they see as the creeping liberalism of Christian feminism see gender inclusive translations as representive of that agenda.  Rather than letting translators seek the best and most accurate translation possible, their hands are tied by political and cultural agendas that really have nothing to do with translation theory.