Aliasing offscreen_male → off-screen_male
Link to alias

Reason:

Like off-screen, the "-" in the middle makes the tag into the official pronunciation of the word.

EDIT: The tag alias offscreen_male -> off-screen_male (forum #283150) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

isn't tagged on anything.
If they're an unseen_character they probably shouldn't be tagged as a gender seeing as they're not actually in the image...

What a weird tag.

After looking at the posts, this tag seems to cover 3 separate concepts.
1. The character is actually off-screen, not appearing in the image at all. In this case, the gender could not be determined by TWYS, and thus the male part of this tag is incorrect.
2. The character is partially off-screen, but it's not possible to tell the gender (ex. just the hands are visible). Same as before, but now both male and offscreen parts are incorrect.
3. The character is partially off-screen, and gender can be determined from the image (ex. by the genitals). But the offscreen part is still not applicable.

(Also see offscreen_character for reference)

It seems to me like invalidating the tag would be the best option, after sorting through the posts.
Any opinions?

If a character is offscreen, you can't see their gender. This tag is invalid no matter how many hyphens it has, not that I'm going to let that stop me from passing comment on how this alias is the wrong way around anyway.

Agree. I vote for invalidate + sort into offscreen_character/mostly_offscreen_character/(nothing) and ambiguous_gender/male/(nothing). Technically you could have cases where dialogue implies that the character is male without seeing him, but a quick glance through offscreen_male ~dialogue ~english_text suggests none of the posts meet that criteria.

matrixmash said:
mostly_offscreen_character

Hang on, what's this tag? Is it just an umbrella for the disembodied_* tags?

The tag alias offscreen_male -> off-screen_male (forum #283150) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.