...וַיַּגִּ֤דוּ לְדָוִד֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אַנְשֵׁי֙ יָבֵ֣ישׁ גִּלְעָ֔ד אֲשֶׁ֥ר קָבְר֖וּ אֶת־שָׁאֽוּל׃
…David was told about the agents from Jabesh-gilead who buried Saul.
(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—in this case, its plural אֲנָשִׁים in the construct form—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this document, pp. 11–16.)
Here, given the NJPS construal of the relative clause as restrictive, a specific group seems to be in view: the commandos depicted in 1 Sam 31:12. They are labeled here in terms of their having represented their hometown in that operation. Then in the next verse, the same term denotes a different referent, namely the town’s leaders, who are labeled via metonymy in their capacity as representatives of the town as a whole. The distinction between the two groups would have been obvious to the ancient audience, based on salience.
In the first instance, women are not in view (given the military context). In the second instance, however, they cannot be reliably excluded from view as inhabitants of the towns.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men of Jabesh-gilead’ no longer accurately reflects the way that אִישׁ was used in ancient Hebrew; nowadays it overtranslates maleness. On agents as a substitute rendering, see my comment at Judg 20:12.