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:
Mortimer SINGER and Bernice B. Singer, Appellants, v. Theodore A. REHM, Appellee.
No. 7459.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
July 15, 1964.
Charles A. Whitebook of Whitebook & Knox, Tulsa, Okl., for appellants.
Frederick S. Nelson, Tulsa, Okl., for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is taken from a judgment summarily entered by the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in favor of the plaintiff-appellee and against the defendants-appellants in the-sum of $15,000 plus interest and attorneys’ fees. The judgment is premised upon plaintiff’s payment, as guarantor and accommodation maker, of a promissory note executed by defendants and payable to a Scottsdale, Arizona, bank. The fact of such payment is not disputed but defendants contend that factual disputes do exist which affect liability and thus render the cause incapable of summary disposition. We hold the appellants’ contentions to have merit.
It would serve no purpose to detail the claims and counterclaims made by the parties through their pleadings, stipulations and offers of proof. It is sufficient to state that the issues were established and stated in a pre-trial order and are such as to require evidence in their proper adjudication. The trial court’s summary disposition of the case, made sua sponte and when both parties had appeared with their witnesses and ready for trial, was ill-advised for such disposition is inappropriate unless it can be said with certainty that no genuine issue of fact survives the pre-trial proceedings, McCollar v. Euler, 10 Cir., 286 F.2d 327, and the case is so free of doubt as to render a formal trial useless. Atkinson v. Jory, 10 Cir., 292 F.2d 169.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

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