Took a while but I found the mind reading and strawman portion of the argument:
Though proponents of the NRSV, CEV, NLT, CEB, and the new NIV do not always express it this way, behind their insistence on removing inclusive “he” and “man” lies the unstated claim that if Jesus and Luke and John and Paul were living today, they would alter their language to accommodate our postmodern, deconstructed view of gender.
Seriously, if you have to resort to arguing against "the unstated claim" of something, you are really grasping at straws. Rest of article promptly falls apart. (It was on its way well before the above quoted portion...)
BTW, an aptly named website--"The Imaginative Conservative"