As the one who started this thread so long ago, I'll just say my piece.
"Female" does not automatically imply "weak", although in many societies throughout history, it has. I am not saying that it is right or wrong to portray females like that; in fact, the leading female of the series (Cera) is by no means weak. What female automatically means is that it is the sex of a species who has the capacity to produce young from her body, once a male fertilizes her egg cell(s.) For mammals, this also means the ability to feed young with milk from her body. Anything else that is implied is rather controversial, including the behaviors and traits which we associate with male and female, such as "strong" and "weak", "active" and "passive", or even "rational" and "irrational", all of which are loaded topics. (and yes, a few species have the ability to use parthenogenesis, but that is highly atypical for terrestrial vertebrates.)
Still, there are some behaviors that have nothing to do with strength or weakness that could be used to differentiate between male and female characters. Among humans, it is women who are generally more concerned about appearances, men who are more concerned about utility (compare shoes for men and women, for example.) Culturally, men are expected to be more forward, women to be more "tacit", even though this can lead to odd or even comical effects (men being too blunt, women hinting at something despite the fact that the guy won't get it.)
The tricky part comes when we are dealing with non-human characters. If we wanted to be realistic, there is no way to know how dinosaurs approached gender relations, or if it would differ from species to species. Since this forum deals with cartoon dinosaurs, we find ourselves looking at characters in dinosaur bodies that have human traits. It would not necessarily be right to project human gender relations into dinosaurs, particularly because the factors that enable human gender relations are not necessarily present in dinosaurs. One element is size differences. Among humans, men and women are typically different in size and strength from a biological point of view, but in some animals, these differences are very small, or even reversed in favor of the female. This would doubtlessly have an impact on the way the genders would relate.
If there is one near-constant among terrestrial vertebrates, it is that the females are the ones who are the primary carer for the children; even more so for mammals, whose young are literally sustained by the mother's milk. Because of this, it was long assumed that the males would be the "protector" among humans in many cultures, and still is to varying degrees. Institutions such as the army, police, and laws simply did not exist in nature, where one's survival is a function of one's own strengths and the strengths of one's herd or pack, if any. It is considerably more brutal than a society we know, even if it is in this modern society that we can be "nice enough" to provide protection to those less able to defend themselves, such as the poor, the sick, pregnant mothers, etc.
Now, none of this means that there is any "iron rule" that people have to obey while making fan-fictions in regards to gender relations among the Land Before Time Dinosaurs. One could argue that in the relative security and plenty of the valley, there is enough room for something other than strength to dominate. Of course, as I previously stated, there could be some species of dinosaur in which the female is stronger than the male, but that is more of a biology discussion than anything else.
In short, there is no reason to make a character conform to a stereotype of gender if you don't want them to.
P.S. "Strong" does not mean B!+*#. History is full of strong women who had a good attitude, like Rosa Parks, or Hellen Keller.
