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:
John J. McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. MADDIGAN, Dr. Perry; Dr. Walter; Dr. Delmuro, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-3112.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 22, 1992.
Before McKAY, Chief Circuit Judge, and MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Mr. McCarthy, a federal prisoner, filed a Bivens — type civil action seeking monetary damages for the alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court, relying upon Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-68 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086, 100 S.Ct. 1045, 62 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980), dismissed the claim without prejudice as Mr. McCarthy failed to demonstrate he had made use of the administrative review process provided by the Bureau of Prisons. We affirmed, being bound by our precedent in Brice. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, 914 F.2d 1411 (10th Cir.1990).
The Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision holding that exhaustion of the Bureau of Prison’s administrative procedure is not required before a federal prisoner can initiate a Bivens action solely for monetary damages. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992).
We therefore recall our mandate and reverse the order of the district court and remand this case to the district court for such further proceedings as may be just and proper in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court.
The mandate shall reissue forthwith.
. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

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