וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ׀ גַּ֣עַל בֶּן־עֶ֗בֶד מִֽי־אֲבִימֶ֤לֶךְ וּמִֽי־שְׁכֶם֙ כִּ֣י נַעַבְדֶ֔נּוּ הֲלֹ֥א בֶן־יְרֻבַּ֖עַל וּזְבֻ֣ל פְּקִיד֑וֹ עִבְד֗וּ אֶת־אַנְשֵׁ֤י חֲמוֹר֙ אֲבִ֣י שְׁכֶ֔ם וּמַדּ֖וּעַ נַעַבְדֶ֥נּוּ אֲנָֽחְנוּ׃
Gaal son of Ebed said, “Who is Abimelech and who are [we] Shechemites, that we should serve him? This same son of Jerubbaal and his lieutenant Zebul once served the entourage of Hamor, the father of Shechem; so why should we serve him?
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ — or in this case, its plural אֲנָשִׁים.)
Prototypically, אֲנָשִׁים is used in sketching a situation schematically. Here, it performs its basic function of labeling the situation-defining participants, while the construct form indicates subservience and affiliation.
As for rendering into English, nowadays the NJPS ‘men of Hamor’ overstates gender (for the fact that women are not in view can go without saying), while evoking little of the nuance of subservience and affiliation. The optimal rendering would evoke the latter qualities while remaining a fairly vague term. The revised rendering comes closer to that goal.