What is an "abberation characteristic"? As far as I'm aware, Abberations don't share a common aesthetic or set of characteristics. And there are no racial tropes associated with then. Oceanic tropes, maybe, but even that doesn't cover all aberrations.
As pointed out upthread:
From the 5e 2014 MM:
Aberrations are utterly alien beings. Many of them have innate magical abilities drawn from the creature's alien mind rather than the mystical forces of the world. The quintessential aberrations are aboleths, beholders, mind flayers, and slaadi.
Gith are very obviously not "utterly alien". If anything they're very human-like in their behaviour, appearance and thought, moreso than many. Tabaxi or Kenku are far stranger than they are.
They aren't similar to Aboleths, Beholders, Mind Flayers or Slaadi in any way.
So unless the 2025 MM drastically redefines Aberration to basically mean "anyone with innate psionics", then it's obviously weird as hell to call them that.
Also, everything else called that is a horrifically dangerous monster. Whereas they're just people. Maybe some of them aren't very nice people, but frankly they're no worse than humans can be.
Even if the original person presented it as a theory, you coming in and loudly proclaiming WoTC is wrong to have done this because of egg-laying is still wrong and still misinformation. Because that isn't why they did it.
This is your failure to follow the thread, and you trying to blame me for it and calling it "misinformation" (literally misusing the word) is not cool, frankly, but it's also not interesting. Read more closely please in future.
Eh, maybe? I can sort of see the Githzerai having some asian connotations because of Buddhism analogues, but that is more based on their religion and spirituality than their race. You may as well say dwarves are a stand-in for greeks because they have a pantheon like the greeks did. It doesn't really fit well.
And while there are some faint hints of asiatic features in their artwork... again it is mostly just the Githzerai, using buddhist imagery and clothing patterns to reflect their monasterial society. The Githyanki certainly never struck me as asiatic with their western armor and dragon riding.
The Githyanki have sometimes (often?) been given Asian-style weapons and armour, and the whole "disciplined and fanatic warriors" is absolutely a classic trope applied to the Japanese. The tiny noses and yellow skin of the Gith also mirror extreme racist propaganda directed against the Japanese and others in WW2.
Your comparison re: dwarves is really lazy and ill-considered and seems similar to how a lot of people (mostly white, male, older) will cheaply dismiss racist stuff to do with their hobbies until it's so glaring they can't, and sometimes even keep going then. Even when some of those same people might immediately notice and call out even lesser racism in hobbies/media they aren't into!
Fantasy dwarves have two ethnic stereotype roots, by the way - Jewish stereotypes, and Norse stereotypes. Tolkien
explicitly, in his own words, was inspired by his ideas about Jewish people (which were not
hateful, let's be clear, but were... stereotypical), to create his dwarves, which are the origin point of pretty much 98% of fantasy dwarves - that's why they're reclaiming their homeland and why they have words/names which sound kind of like Hebrew ones as well (again, explicitly, Tolkien literally said so). A lot of people didn't realize this though, and early art of dwarves tended towards portraying them in Viking-adjacent ways simply because a lot of work of that era liked horned helms and axes and so on, and eventually this slid into more and more Viking associations with dwarves (which I think was also because dwarves were in Norse mythology, and were also big craftsmen there), and that's nowadays the more dominant association. Thankfully! Because stuff like "They lust for gold!" hits different once you know what Tolkien was going for... damn...
Yes, the game term "humanoid" does not match its scientific meaning. Studded leather also doesn't exist. DnD takes liberties. This isn't an issue until you make it an issue by ascribing traits to humanoid that do not exist in the game
There's no modern "scientific meaning" of humanoid lol.
The Wikipedia article is pretty good:
Humanoid - Wikipedia
It's just a word. But TSR and WotC used it fairly consistently up until mid-5E, to mean human-shaped, roughly human-sized corporeal beings, and only when we got this weird "you can only have one type" thinking with the Satyrs and the like did it start being an issue.
Further, there's no rational or logical or even game-balance justification for NOT making Elves, Fey, Dragonborn, Dragons, etc. etc. if we're going to play that game. Indeed it's perverse and bizarre the Goblins ARE Fey, but Elves AREN'T Fey.
It's more likely there will be a point in a Gith PC's career where they can shrug off any spell that targets Humanoids.
