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:
Helen RIDINGER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Clara D. Johnson et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 71-1934, 71-1937.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 20, 1972.
Decided Oct. 13, 1972.
Dennis E. Murray, Sandusky, Ohio (Murray & Murray Co., Sandusky, Ohio, Thomas C. Waechter, Bieser, Greer & Landis, Dayton, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Charles P. Pfarrer, Dayton, Ohio (Cowden, Pfarrer, Crew & Becker, Dayton, Ohio, Ross L. Malone, Detroit, Mich., on brief), for General Motors.
Susan Deller Ross, EEOC, Washington, D. C. (Howard Besser, Dist. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, on brief), amici curiae for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Ruth Weyand, Washington, D. C., and Sorrell Logethetis, Knee, Snyder & Parks, Dayton, Ohio (Winn Newman, Washington, D. C., and Richard Rice, Kettering, Ohio, on brief), for Union.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, KENT, Circuit Judge, and Mc-ALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
These appeals are from judgments entered in the trial court disposing of cases which were commenced as class actions under the provisions of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The trial court, 325 F.Supp. 1089, failed to determine whether the actions could be maintained as class actions as required by Rule 23(c), and the judgments from which these appeals are taken do not “include and describe those whom the court finds to be members of the class.”
It is, therefore, ordered that the judg-. ments of the trial court are reversed and the cases remanded for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for consideration in the light of this Court’s opinion in Manning v. International Union and General Motors Corp., 466 F.2d 812, decided September 11, 1972.

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: 3