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:
Jasper C. DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS COUNTY, GEORGIA et al., Appellees.
No. 23882.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
June 26, 1967.
A. J. Whitehurst, III, Thomasville, Ga., for appellants.
William P. Trotter, LaGrange, Ga., Charles F. Johnson, of Altman & Johnson, E. P. McCollum, Sol Altman, Thomasville, Ga., for appellees.
Before GEWIN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges, and LYNNE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Contending that the method of election of the eight members of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Thomas County provided by an act of the Georgia Legislature in 1911 (1911 Ga.Laws, p. 501), as amended in 1917 (1917 Ga.Laws, p. 394), constituted a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment within the principles articulated in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) and nurtured in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964), appellants, resident citizens of District No. 1 (Thomasville), filed their complaint for a declaratory judgment that such enactments are unconstitutional.
The thrust of their complaint is that although the present statute requires the election of all eight commissioners, with staggered terms, by the electorate of the county at large, the residence requirements set forth therein result in the representation of District No. 1, with a population of 20,492, by two commissioners, while the remaining four districts with a population of 13,827, are represented by six. This, they insist, amounts to invidious discrimination as a matter of law.
Being of the opinion that the complaint did not meet the test of Reed v. Mann, 237 F.Supp. 22 (N.D.Ga.1964), the district court sustained the motion to dismiss filed in behalf of defendants. This result is clearly vindicated by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 87 S.Ct. 1554, 18 L.Ed.2d 656 (May 22, 1967), which is dis-positive of this appeal. The judgment is
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: 2