One of my favorite books is The Challenge Of Bible Translation. It was published in 2003 and had articles from twenty authors. One of the chapters was written by Mark L. Strauss: Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate.
Dr. Strauss speaks to the issue in the header in a few places.
"There is, in fact, no such thing as a 'literal translation' (i.e. single, uniform, corresponding exactly with the Hebrew), since every Hebrew word or phrase ....could be translated in a variety of ways. Every translation constantly involves interpretive decisions, all of which change the words (from Hebrew or Greek to English) and all of which change subtle nuances of meaning." (p.123)
"While one may appropriately speak of a primary sense of a word, this is very different from a literal meaning. A primary sense refers to the most common meaning and may serve a pragmatic function in translation: Try this first to see if it works. To call a primary sense the literal meaning, however, assumes the logical fallacy that one sense of a lexeme governs or controls all others. For example, to say that 'flesh' is the literal meaning of the Greek term sarx is to assume that this sense somehow imposes its meaning on other senses of sarx ('life,' 'human being,' 'sinful nature,' etc.) This is a fallacy. It is context alone that determines which sense of a lexeme is intended within its sematic range." (pages 133,134)
From the Merriam-webster Dictionary)
LITERAL - (1.) : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual
(2.) : free from exaggeration or embellishment