(ח) וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֨ם אֲבִימֶ֜לֶךְ בַּבֹּ֗קֶר וַיִּקְרָא֙ לְכׇל־עֲבָדָ֔יו וַיְדַבֵּ֛ר אֶת־כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֥ים הָאֵ֖לֶּה בְּאׇזְנֵיהֶ֑ם וַיִּֽירְא֥וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים מְאֹֽד׃
Early next morning, Abimelech called his servants and told them all that had happened; and they were greatly frightened.
(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 determined plural form אֲנָשִׁים—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
This is a prototypical (and therefore readily understood) usage of the situating noun: its use in the definite noun phrase profiles its (plural) referent in terms of the given situation. The situating noun is preferred when schematically updating a previously depicted situation.
The narrator is noting the participants’ emotional reaction to their situation, which in turn is essential for the audience’s grasp of the evolving situation. This is a regular occasion for using the situating noun (also Gen 24:21; 34:7; 43:18, 33; 2 Sam 10:5; 1 Chr 19:5; Jon 1:10, 16; Ruth 3:8). Such usage handily re-situates the referent in the audience’s mind. It discloses situationally essential information about the participants. (This function explains why the king’s servants are referred here to via a semantically vague noun, rather than by some other referring expression, such as a pronoun.)
Gender is not at issue. There are no grounds for rendering in gendered terms.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men’ is dated; English idiom no longer uses that noun with a primarily situating function in such a context. Rather, a pronoun seems more idiomatic here.