וַיֵּצֵא֙ אִ֣ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה עִם־בִּנְיָמִ֑ן וַיַּעַרְכ֨וּ אִתָּ֧ם אִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל מִלְחָמָ֖ה אֶל־הַגִּבְעָֽה׃
Israel’s side took the field against the Benjaminites; those on Israel’s side drew up in battle order against them at Gibeah.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—showing a slight modification projected for October 2023. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ.)
When a referring expression includes אִישׁ in construct with a group name, such as אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙, our noun marks its referent’s defining participation in the depicted situation. Here, in the context of intergroup hostilities, it labels the assembled militia in terms of their role as a party to the conflict with Benjamin. The militia’s members are construed as a unit—hence the singular noun. This usage regards them as one of the two opposing sides, as warring parties. This is one of the instances where a “collective” usage of אִישׁ is clearly evident, from the greater informativeness that calls for such a construal in the first clause, and from the mismatch in grammatical number (plural verb) in the next clause. On the meaning of this conventional usage in the context of hostilities, see further my comment at Josh 10:24.
As for rendering into English, see my comment at Josh 10:24. Meanwhile, the fact that women are not in view can go without saying, because it is self-evident from the military context.