I agree with the sentiment of sloppy language. Seems like much of the human race is still in a tribalistic mode where they don't even want to think about peacefully coexisting with another species that could be their equal or perhaps even better. Ironic that such a race would also willingly bow down before gods that are impossible to confirm... oh, but now I'm rambling!

Shoat is cute, I'd definitely hang out with him over most humans any day.

Venn Diagrams would help, as would fewer arbitrary distictions.

And the chafing! don't forget the chafing!

Uuuugh, the friggin' chafing!

Shoat looks like he'd belong Where The Wild Things Are.

Shoat could be from Where The Wild Things Are, or maybe Halloweentown.

Monster is as monster does! ...Whatever that means!

Yeah, it's an unfortunate quirk of the language, that the word "monster" has two meanings that, especially in this case, contrast against each other. It's for that reason that I wouldn't refer to either of these characters using that word, opting instead for something unambiguous, like "doggy" in Woof's case and, since it's the best word I can think of right now, "exotic" in Shoat's case. (Although I imagine he'd get called "dragon" a lot; I'm sure that's not very accurate, but close enough?)

By the way, there's a simple workaround for the "itchy fur" problem... But I suspect he'd like that even less than wearing itchy clothes!

Indeed, Shoat is not a dragon. Apparently what he is is a "crosseye", so called because of his cross-shaped pupils. However, that name makes people laugh, so he usually just prefers they call him a monster, or a dragon if they reeeeally prefer.

Another wrinkle is that calling them "monsters" and "monster people" has become the go-to for Not-a-Furry artists who want to keep making furry stuff but want everyone to know these are Not Furries and they themselves are Not Furries.

Darn itchy fur...