Both cites of the Yad Ramah are in my notes.
1. The notes to 67a say that the Yad Ramah holds that a person who accedes to instigation is also trivial and may be brought to justice by concealed witnesses (Artscroll, 67a3, note 23).
2. The Yad Ramah to the Mishnah on 111b3 says that if any other than men subverted the city, the people are treated as individual and must get a warning.
I don't think that you can say that the first Yad Ramah only speaks of a group of male subverters to a city. This is because the first is also speaking of one who subverts another one.
Thus, how do we reconcile these 2 statements?
Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA
The second statement of the Yad Ramah is explaining that because of the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of "Yatzu Anashim" -- "men went out" (Devarim 13:14), only if the people who acted as missionaries were men does the city have the Halachah of an Ir ha'Nidachas. Otherwise, the *people of the city* are treated as individuals. However, I do not believe the Yad Ramah is saying that the *missionaries themselves* (i.e. women) need a warning.
All the best,