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:
FORCHEIMER v. YOUNG et al. COHEN et al. v. SAME.
No. 9399.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 21, 1943.
Harris W. Wienner, of Detroit, Mich., and Meyer Abrams, of Chicago, 111., for appellants.
Cook, Smith, Jacobs & Beake, Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Bills, Miller, Can-field, Paddock & Stone, Robert S. Marx, Lawrence I. Levi, and Carl Runge, all of Detroit, Mich., for appellees.
Before ALLEN, MARTIN, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On the previous appeal in this cause, the appellant, Benjamin E. Cohen, who as a stockholder of the L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation brought a derivative action against appellee Leonard A. Young and others, obtained a reversal of the decree of the district court approving, over appellant’s objection, the compromise settlement of the corporate cause of action against appellee Leonard A. Young and others. The cause was remanded for further proceedings, with directions that the district court personally examine the statements of appellee Young and of the auditors upon which the attorneys who recommended the compromise settlement had relied, and that the appellant be permitted to go forward with evidence limited to the single subject of the solvency of the appellee Young. Cohen v. Young, 6 Cir., 127 F.2d 721.
It appears from the record presented on the present appeal by Benjamin E. Cohen that the district court has complied in all particulars with the former mandate of this court, has received and considered all evidence proffered, and has given appellant a full and fair hearing; and it further appears from the entire record that the findings of fact recorded by the district court are supported by substantial evidence, and that the conclusions of law drawn therefrom by the district court are correct.
Accordingly, the decree of the district court, approving the compromise settlement, dismissing with prejudice the bill of complaint and the supplemental bills of complaint, and adjudicating other matters, is in all respects 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