Women who interpret the Bible find three challenges regarding language and gender.

First, there is the problem of the generic use of words such as ‘man’, ‘mankind’, ‘he’, ‘him’, and so on.  It is argued that the continued use of such vocabulary, in contexts in which both men and women are in view, obscures the participation of women in the stories which the text relates.  Some modern translations of the Bible strive to minimise this problem by using expressions such as ‘brothers and sisters’, ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘humankind’, where both men and women are being referred to, or where the gender is not specified.

Second, there is the problem of language used about God.  Bible translators almost invariably use male pronouns, noting that this simply reflects the fact that male pronouns are used in the original Hebrew and Greek.  But (feminist interpreters might argue) both those languages have gendered pronouns for all nouns (just like modern Spanish and French).  Thus, the decision to use male pronouns in an English translation is not just a grammatical decision: it reflects a theological commitment.  This leads some women to refrain from using any pronouns at all to refer to ‘God’ (simply repeating the word ‘God’, or using the non-vocalised ‘G-d’), thus conveying the belief that God is beyond all human categories of gender.

Third, there is the problem of using male pronouns and titles (such as ‘Lord’) to refer to Christ.  Of course, Jesus of Nazareth was male.  But some women are offended by the idea of their being ultimately dependent on a male for their relationship with God.  We might recognise that, theologically, the emphasis (in the Bible and in the creeds, for example) is on the humanness of Jesus (and not his maleness); but the difficulty then would be in expressing this in language.

Based on Sharon H. Ringe, in Women’s Bible Commentary, 2012 revised edition, p6.