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:
Bettie MURPHY and Lloyd Murphy, Her Husband, and Lloyd Murphy, in His Own Right, Appellants in No. 15184, v. HELENA RUBENSTEIN COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of New York, and H. J. Titus, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New York, Jointly, Severally and/or in the Alternative, Appellants in No. 15185.
Nos. 15184, 15185.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Nov. 30, 1965.
Decided Dec. 8, 1965.
Arthur E. Bailen, Camden, N. J., for appellants in No. 15,184 and for appel-lee in No. 15,185.
Sidney P. McCord, Jr., Haddonfield, N. J. (McCord, Farrell, Eynon & Mun-yon, Haddonfield, N. J., on the brief), for appellee in No. 15,184 and for appellants in No. 15,185.
Before HASTIE, GANEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On motion, the district court entered an order vacating a default judgment and at the same time refusing to quash, service. At this intermediate stage of the litigation the plaintiffs have appealed from the vacating of the default judgment and the defendants have taken a cross-appeal from the refusal to quash service.
We have recently held that an order vacating a default judgment is not final within the meaning of section 1291 of Title 28, United States Code, and, therefore, cannot support an immediate appeal. Crowe v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 1962, 307 F.2d 73. Similarly, a refusal to quash service is not an appealable final order.
The appeal and the cross-appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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: 1