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:
KOFOUROS et al. v. GIANNOUTSOS et al. THE MENTOR.
No. 5869.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
May 17, 1949.
Rehearing Denied July 21, 1949.
See 175 F.2d 734.
Burt M. Morewitz and J. L. Morewitz, Newport News, Va. (Morewitz & More-witz, Newport News, Va., on the brief) for appellants.
Roy L. Sykes and R. Arthur Jett, Norfolk, Va., for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This was a libel in admiralty filed by Greek seamen against a Greek vessel. Li-bellant Kofouros sought recovery of damages for refusal to grant him hospitalization when thg vessel arrived at Hampton Roads and for false imprisonment. The other libellants sought to recover the wages due them at Hampton Roads when they were logged as deserters, together with the double wages provided by 46 U.S.C.A. § 596, and damages for failure to return their seamen’s books. The District Judge declined to assume jurisdiction of the case of Kofouros on the ground that the controversy was one between a foreign ship and a foreign seaman where the interests of justice did not require that jurisdiction be assumed by an American court. He held, however, in the interest of an expeditious disposition of the matter, that the facts did not warrant recovery by libellants if jurisdiction were assumed. As to the other li-bellants he held that they were not entitled to recover. We think that in holding that there was no liability to any of libel-lants, he was unquestionably correct.
As to the libellant Kofouros, the judge has found on ample evidence that he was not in need of hospitalization; and it appears that he remained aboard the vessel and was subsequently paid off in full and discharged at Antwerp. On the charge of false imprisonment, it appears that he was detained aboard the vessel at the direction of the Immigration authorities. As to the other libellants, it appears that they signed on in Cardiff for a round trip voyage to the United States and return to a port of Europe; that, notwithstanding this, they asked to be discharged at Hampton Roads and that the master agreed to discharge them there if the Immigration authorities would consent; that the Immigration authorities would not consent and the master ordered the seamen to return to the vessel, which they failed to do; that, after delaying the sailing of the vessel for six or seven hours to afford them an opportunity to return and after notifying them that they must return or be logged as deserters, the master proceeded on his voyage and logged them as deserters and thereafter deposited their seamen’s books at the first port of call and the balance due on their wages with the Department of the Greek Marine Minister, as required by Greek law. That none of appellants were entitled to recover anything under the circumstances is too clear for argument.
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: 1