Task: songer_respond1_7_2

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine the gender of this litigant. Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity (e.g., the sex of "Chris" should be coded as "not ascertained").

HITZ, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal by defendant below from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia awarding plaintiff below alimony pendente lite upon a bill for limited divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The bill was filed February 5, 1930, together with a motion for alimony pendente lite.
On February 11,1930, separate motions to dismiss the bill and to strike out certain portions thereof were filed by the defendant.
The motion to dismiss was denied, and the motion to strike granted by one order dated February 17, 1930.
And on the same date, by a separate order of the court, alimony pendente lite was granted, from which order alone the defendant brings this appeal.
He assigns as error: (1) The denial of his motion to dismiss the amended bill of complaint; (2) the awarding of alimony pendente lite to the plaintiff.
It is unnecessary to consider the first assignment, or the defendant’s right or procedure on an appeal from the order denying Ms motion to dismiss the bill, because no appeal was taken from that order.
As to the second assignment of error, based upon the order awarding alimony pendente lite, it is settled that the granting or refusing of alimony pendente lite rests in the discretion of the trial court, not to be disturbed by the reviewing court, except for a clear abuse. Tolman v. Tolman, 1 App. D. C. 299; Shaw v. Shaw, 2 App. D. C. 204; Lesh v. Lesh, 21 App. D. C. 475; Reed v. Reed, 52 App. D. C. 36, 280 F. 1009; Wygodsky v. Wygodsky, 134 Md. 344, 106 A. 698.
But in this ease there is no showing of any abuse of discretion, and no answer to the bill into which we might look for such a showing.
The order appealed from is therefore affirmed, with costs.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". What is the gender of this litigant?Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity.
A. not ascertained
B. male - indication in opinion (e.g., use of masculine pronoun)
C. male - assumed because of name
D. female - indication in opinion of gender
E. female - assumed because of name
Answer:

Answer: D