Do you mean the little red two-pin connectors? If so, that's very interesting, as I've got a whole load of those here already - I hadn't thought to try one as a connector for the motor block under the railbus, though i do need to re-wire it for DCC, so I'll give that a go!
If they are the same ones I'm thinking of, then I think that technically the bit you're using is referred to as the "female" end of the connector - the "male" is the shrouded bit that the other plugs into, which seems the wrong way round until you notice that the shrouded part actually has the two exposed pins inside, which fit into the two holes in the end of the female half......
Jon.
No, from the description those sound like the JST RCY type, also sometimes refered to as BEC, and less helpfully as just plain 'JST'. These anyway :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_connector#JST_RCY_connector
They are used on some Aristo wiring looms (almost all the Art19351 B-type trucks I've ever had have included converter cables to translate between them and something else whose name escapes me which I think Aristo used on early runs of the FA etc.), and I also use them on DCC friendly HLW blocks.
As for the male/female issue, my understanding dates back to using MIL-spec 'bayonet' connectors (where the internals could be put in either way round), and that in the first instance male/female dictates the behaviour of the two bits of the case relative to each other. If there are assembly options after that (like the Mil-spec), then you need to specify that too, but in the case of the SM type there aren't, even though the SM 'plug' is internally configured as a socket. Same applies to the RCY type - the one on the left in the wikipedia picture is the socket, even though it has solid pins inside it, and the plug on the right has mechanically shielded hollow metal tubes that wrap round the pins.
Clear as mud? It is of course also possible that someone has sneakily changed the convention while my back was turned all these years.
Jonathan
g-bits