The NRSV used a translational philosophy that aimed at being as least “offensive” as possible. So, for example, there are no “lepers,” but only those who are “infected with a leprous disease.” One is not “struck dumb” but rather becomes “speechless.” There’s also inclusive language: or the idea that pronouns should be gender-neutral.
Also, I’m not sure that the NRSV does this, but there are certain translations which tend to avoid using pronouns for God or for Jesus as much as is possible. For example, they wouldn’t use a sentence like this one:
God is great, and I give Him praise and glory, and I thank Him for all that He has given to me.
Instead, they might render the above as:
God is great. I give God praise and glory. I thank God for all that I have been given.
That sort of subtle stuff is just silly.
But thank God that the NRSV did not go as far as some would have apparently liked. Jesus is still the “Son of God” rather than merely being a “Child of God.” But nonetheless, a lot of folks dislike the NRSV because of the aforementioned translational approach.
Others aren’t bothered by it, and more power to them, so long as their motivation is pure.
I happen to find it kind of lame and overly politically correct and distracting. I’d rather just use the RSV instead of unconsciously thinking about feminism as I read the Bible.