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 second listed appellant. 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").

Opinion:
Thomas E. KEANE and Paul T. Wigoda, individually and on behalf of all other residents of the City of Chicago, Ellinois, Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al., Appellees.
No. 71-1343.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 4, 1973.
Jerome H. Torshen (argued), Lawrence H. Eiger, Chicago, 111., for appellants.
G. William Shea (argued), of Mc-Cutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, Los Angeles, Cal., Robert L. Stern (argued), of Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, 111., Lloyd N, Cutler (argued), of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D. C., Hammond E. Chaffetz (argued), of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, 111., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, 111., Ronald Bloomfield, Atty. Gen., New York City, Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, N. M., George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., Robert S. Killiam, Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., Max P. Zall, City Atty., Denver, Colo., J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel for the City of New York, R. F. Outcault, Jr., Marcus Mattson, Robert Henigson, of Lawler, Felix & Hall, Richard H. Borow, of Irell & Manella, Carla A. Hills, of Munger, Tolies, Hills & Riekershauser, Julian O. von Kalinowski, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Harvey M. Grossman, of Pacht, Ross, Warne, Bernhard, Sears & Nutter, Alan N. Halkett, of Latham & Watkins, Richard C. Warmer, of O’Melveny & Myers, Philip K. Verleger, Jack D. Fudge, of McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, Los Angeles, Cal., Kenneth P. Kimmel, Santa Monica, Cal., Benjamin F. Schwartz, of Schwartz & Alschuler, Los Angeles, Cal., William J. A. Sturtz, Long Beach, Cal., Perry Goldberg, Roger W. Barrett of Mayer, Brown & Platt, Joseph DuCoeur, of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, 111., David I. Shapiro, of Dickstein, Shapiro & Galligan, John H. Schafer, III, of Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., David Berger, of Cohen, Shapiro, Berger, Polish & Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., D. S. Bowie, Jr., Allentown, Pa., of Mack Trucks, Inc., Bruce W. Kauffman, of Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Levy & Coleman, Harold E. Kohn, Philadelphia, Pa., Forrest A. Hainline, Jr., of Cross, Wroek, Miller & Vieson, Walter J. Williams, Paul A. Heinen, William E. Huth, of Chrysler Corp., Ross L. Malone, Robert A. Nitschke, of General Motors, Detroit, Mich., William C. Marchiondo, Albuquerque, N. M., Norris L. O’Neill, Hartford, Conn., Leo T. Zuckerman, of Denver, Colo., for appellees.
Before HAMLIN, BROWNING, and ELY, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This treble damage action under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, was directed against the three largest domestic automobile manufacturers. It was instituted by ten Chicago aider-men, individually and on behalf of that city’s residents under Rule 23. Their claim is bottomed on the same factual allegations presented in In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, M.D.L. No. 31, 9 Cir., 481 F.2d 122, in which our opinion has this day issued. The District Court held that the action could not be maintained under Rule 23 and this interlocutory appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), followed.
We need not reach the class action issues since the disposition of this appeal is controlled by our resolution of the standing issue under section 4 of the Clayton Act in Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, swpra. The appellants here alleged no injuries to commercial ventures or enterprises, and since they lack the requisite standing, the District Court will, upon remand, dismiss the action in its entirety.
Remanded with directions.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. 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.

Choices:
not ascertained
male - indication in opinion (e.g., use of masculine pronoun)
male - assumed because of name
female - indication in opinion of gender
female - assumed because of name

Answer: 2