וְאֵת֩ חֲזֵ֨ה הַתְּנוּפָ֜ה וְאֵ֣ת ׀ שׁ֣וֹק הַתְּרוּמָ֗ה תֹּֽאכְלוּ֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם טָה֔וֹר אַתָּ֕ה וּבָנֶ֥יךָ וּבְנֹתֶ֖יךָ אִתָּ֑ךְ כִּֽי־חׇקְךָ֤ וְחׇק־בָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ נִתְּנ֔וּ מִזִּבְחֵ֥י שַׁלְמֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
But the breast of elevation offering and the thigh of gift offering you [and your wife], and your sons and daughters with you, may eat in any pure place, for they have been assigned as a due to you and your sons from the Israelites’ sacrifices of well-being.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation.)
The noun בָּנִים (plural of בֵּן, here inflected with a pronominal suffix as בָּנֶיךָ) is employed to label a category of persons, whose gender is thus not constrained by the referring expression. On how social gender is ascribed (or not) in Biblical Hebrew references, see Stein 2008; Stein 2013.
Yet the topic surely excludes women from view. Yes, daughters of priestly families are entitled to eat a sacrificial donation, yet as Rashi points out (ad loc., following Sifra § 10), it primarily compensates the priest for his ritual role, and only secondarily does it serve to feed his family (including its females). In other words, an ancient Israelite audience would have understood that the donation is “assigned” or “due” specifically to the (male) priest—who then shares it with his family.
This understanding would not be readily shared by the contemporary audience. Thus there is warrant for rendering in gendered terms.
Regarding translation into English, the NJPS rendering “your children” nowadays tends to be taken as a positively inclusive (and not merely neutral) term. The revised rendering is more clearly gender-specific.