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 C. LOAN, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 9804.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 8, 1965.
Decided April 20, 1965.
F. Byron Parker, Richmond, Va., for appellant.
H. Merrill Pasco, Richmond, Va. (Robert P. Buford, Jr., and Robert F. Brooks and Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and STANLEY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
John C. Loan, a railroad fireman, brought an action against his employer, Southern Railway Co., under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. He alleged in his complaint that the defendant negligently caused him to slip and fall by leaving metal rods on a step leading to the cab of an engine in which he was working. The case was heard by a jury and a verdict was rendered for the defendant.
The charge to the jury was adequate and there was sufficient evidence offered to support its verdict. The testimony of Loan’s ex-wife, even if privileged, was merely cumulative. Independent witnesses abundantly established the facts testified to by the wife. The error of receiving her testimony, if it was error, was not in our opinion sufficient in the entire context of the trial to warrant reversal.
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