litphoria

This definition which is used for many traits makes no sense because characters don't have a defined gender.

I'm pretty sure every definition we produce will have cases where it makes no sense. In those circumstances it's gonna rely on some human interpretation and your context to clarify.

E.g. if I made a golem with a dick, while golems usually don't have dicks, I'd probably use a human dick for a size reference point.

@Velus: Basically you are right, the problem is the same with "species". But at least there is a species-trait as a reference-point and a standard species, human, as reserve reference point. But there is no gender-trait and no standard gender.

This is now In Discussion. There's nothing we can action here though. Do you have any suggestions?

Nothing that would have any chance of being accepted. :D

I'm not sure what we could do that would be accepted either. There's a lot of usefulness in referring to the species/gender for some kind of average, even if it gets taken in a "you know what I mean" kind of way, but that same "you know what I mean" way of reading into these traits means we can usually work out what someone means. If we take away that frame of reference I wouldn't know what to put in its place.

I wouldn't put anything in it's place. I don't believe there is usefulness in referring to the species/gender. It adds confusion. Does "sexually experienced" mean the same for a human as for a succubus? What is the average breast size of an elf? Or the average body height of an elephant-anthro? I cannot know if the other player used a human as reference point or the species of their character.

It doesn't mean the same things for any of those, which is why "average for species and gender" are on there in the first place, since there's no reference point we could reasonably use for a lot of them that would be the same across all species/genders/races/etc.

It does mean the same things for all of those if I made the character profile. For me that a succubus has more sexual experience than a human woman is the point I want to express with the trait. We discussed this already though. I got the point that "average for their gender and species" stands for "traits are relative to the character" but I don't think the phrase can transport this message. I got it because it was explained to me three times.