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 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:
Rudolph Valentino DI GIOVANNI, an infant, by his mother and next friend, Elise Heguy DiGiovanni, et al., Appellants, v. Abraham RIBICOFF, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellee.
No. 15842.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 18, 1961.
Decided Feb. 23, 1961.
Mr. Walter J. Murphy, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Samuel B. Block, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Donald S. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Bazelon, and Fahy, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Beulah Countiss was divorced from Paul R. Pearson, in Virginia, on January 17, 1944. At that time a Virginia statute prohibited remarriage of either party for six months. On June 24, 1944, the prohibited period was reduced to four months by amendment and re-enactment of the statute, [Code 1919, § 5113 as amended by Acts 1944, c. 142]. Thereafter, on July 1, 1944, more than five months after the divorce decree was entered, Beulah Countiss entered into a ceremonial marriage in the District of Columbia with Pasquale DiGiovanni. In our opinion that marriage was valid because the reduction in the suspension period had freed Beulah to marry.
The parties to that marriage lived together for some years. Pasquale and the present appellant began living together in 1950 and a child was born to them in 1951. Pasquale died in 1952. Beulah was still alive. Her marriage to Pasquale was never dissolved. Pasquale was therefore incapable of marrying the appellant. Accordingly the Social Security Administration and the District Court were right in rejecting appellant’s claim to benefits as the widow of Pasquale. Their decision that an illegitimate child is not entitled to the claimed Social Security benefits is unchallenged and we do not rule upon it. 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(h) (2); D.C.Code,. Supp. VIII, 1960, § 18-716.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first 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: 3