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:
Lorenzo WHITE, Joyce Harper and Ruby Fields, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 15667.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
April 11, 1958.
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1958.
Robert J. McNealy, Everett W. Hepp, Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellants.
George M. Yeager, U. S. Atty., Paula A. Tennant, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellee.
Before MATHEWS, HEALY and LEMMON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On May 25, 1956, appellants (Lorenzo White, Joyce Harper and Ruby Fields) and others were indicted in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska. The indictment was in seven counts. Count 1 charged appellants with having violated § 4724(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 4724(b). Count 2 charged appellants with having violated 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. Counts 3 and 7 charged appellants with having violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 371. Counts 4 and 5 did not charge any of the appellants with any offense. Count 6 charged Fields with having violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 1716, but did not charge White or Harper with any offense. Appellants were arraigned, pleaded not guilty, had a jury trial, were found guilty as charged, were sentenced and have appealed. Appellants’ brief contains no specification of errors. We have examined the record and have found no reversible error.
Judgments affirmed.
. Also known as Ruby Jeanette Fields, as Ruby Mayfield and as Pearline Adams.
. Penalties for violating § 4724(b) are prescribed in § 7237 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
. Three judgments were entered — one sentencing White, one sentencing Harper, one sentencing Melds.
. Our Rule 18, 28 U.S.C.A. provides:
“1. Counsel for the appellant shall file with the clerk of this court 20 copies of a printed brief * * *
“2. This brief shall contain * * *
“(d) In all cases a specification of errors relied upon which shall be numbered and shall set out separately and particularly each error intended to be urged. * * * »

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