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:
J. M. YOUNG, Appellant, v. ETHYL CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 80-1589.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Dec. 2, 1980.
Chambers & Chambers by Melvin T. Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Magnolia, Ark., Robert J. Moffatt, Shreveport, La., for appellant.
Baker & Botts by Robt. Malinak, Houston, Tex., Anderson & Crumpler by Paul C. Crumpler, Magnolia, Ark., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT, ROSS and McMILLI-AN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
August 8, 1978, this court, upon consideration of appeals Nos. 77-1807 and 77-1829, which were appeals from district court orders in the instant case, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. September 8,1978, this court denied the motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Young v. Ethyl Corp., 581 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1089, 99 S.Ct. 871, 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979). Upon remand plaintiff J. M. Young filed a motion to vacate, it was denied by the district court June 2, 1980, and plaintiff brought the instant appeal.
Because of our concern that the order appealed from did not deal with the issue of prejudgment and post-judgment interest which was to be determined on remand, this court by order of October 24, 1980, directed the parties to show cause, if any, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure of the order to dispose of all parties and issues as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The response of plaintiff-appellant J. M. Young is but another attempt to relitigate the original suit and a collection of general principles of appellate review. It does not address the failure of the June 2, 1980 district court order to dispose of all issues. Nor does it present any basis for an interlocutory appeal. Having considered the letter brief, this court holds that the appeal should be and hereby is dismissed for lack of a final judgment below.
It is so ordered.

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: 0