that line is from the branding guidelines for kit
whilst it is legitimate, it misrepresents the purpose of both kit and branding guidelines: kit is a feature meant to invoke feelings; not a character having made a decision about its gender
we don’t care about the kits genders but mozilla cares about it being ambiguous because kit is a character meant to increase feelings of personal connection with the user by being able to be interpreted however the user likes (female, male, or non-binary)
in both the intro blog post and the branding guidelines mozilla does bring up the new (complimentary; not replacement) mascots pronouns as explicitly non-binary
the firefox is explicitly (in the case of mozilla firefox) neither fox nor red panda
https://brand.mozilla.com/d/5UkPdpbtt8LS/visual-elements#/-/mascot-1
Our mascot is a Firefox — not a fox, not a red panda. It’s not a real-life animal, it’s Firefox’s own unique creature.
it even: the original source of the non-binary claim is an anti-woke blog post about them removing the old mascot and replacing it with a non-binary mascot, when in fact mozilla had a logo rather than full expression of a mascot, and now they’re a fully formed branding representation of the firefox which includes non-gendered pronouns (as a feature of the characters function; not as an explicit choice about gender representation)
but that was again not about removing the dino as much as as it was about differentiating mozilla from firefox by taking the mozilla identity from firefox because mozilla is more than firefox and behaves differently to firefox, and giving firefox its own identity which is more friendly
they do make explicit mention of non-gendered pronouns in their branding guidelines for kit. the intro blog post is an expression of those guidelines
but every announcement by mozilla makes it clear that kit isn’t about taking a stance on gender: it’s simply explicitly about not taking a stance on gender
it’s not even that… kit doesn’t have a gender identity: kit expresses ambiguity in gender so that the user can decide for themselves no matter who the user is. kit is a feature; not a character having made a decision about their gender… and their non-gendered pronouns are simply part of that feature
but it’s not a PR move… their blog post lays out the reasoning: kit is intended to exist in the browser to make users feel good about using the browser. it’s a friendly “congratulations for interacting” and “we’re doing something for your benefit” (as an anthropomorphic representation of that behaviour) character, and a feature of it as an engineered feature is that the user can apply any gender they like. kit hasn’t made a choice to be non-binary; mozilla has made a choice to make kit specifically ambiguous both in aesthetic when drawn and pronouns when written about
that’s exactly it: in context, kit is a feature intended to be interpreted by the user; not a representation of a sentient character having made a conscious choice to be non-binary simply because of mozilla’s chosen pronouns and lack of gender expression
they do though via stating its pronouns - even including it, repeatedly referring to it even in their intro blog post as “they”
but that’s because it’s a feature to increase the feeling friendliness of the browser by establishing personal connection via the application of any (or non-) gender by the user no matter their preference rather than intended as a portrayal of a sentient character having made a decision for themselves
which is from a notoriously “pro-conservative” twitter account, so safe is highly debatable given that the “conservative” label is often applied to provably false arguments
look i agree the x post is culture war shit, but mozilla does mention the gender of their mascot in their branding resources… but imo this is less of an explicit recognition about the mascot being non-binary and more a function of the mascot being able to be interpreted by humans however they like, and “it” being the term they seem to use simply to increase ambiguity and feelings of personal connection to the mascot for the most people
imo even in socialist societies brands need some protection because it’s possible to have higher quality or “differently moral” products still where people can choose the cost trade-offs of the products they use which means one product shouldn’t be able to use the investment/differentiation of another product in brand (and to a point ux research as this disincentivises usability and feeling over brochureware and copying investment in non-tangibles) to pretend to be the different product
mozilla can be legitimately pro-foss-software in its mission and not include pro-foss-everything in furtherance of that single goal
even then though mozilla provides downloads of their kit assets
heck even marketing - to a point - is necessary to foss software… linux probably wouldn’t have taken off without the investments of microsoft and apple in making consumer hardware both usable (relative to early computers) and marketable
which is from a notoriously “pro-conservative” twitter account, so safe is highly debatable given that the “conservative” label is often applied to provably false arguments
replied to the wrong comment
likely yes. species in general are able to conceptualise gender because it’s necessary for procreation (keep reading; i promise this ends in a view that’s pro-trans but stronger because it’s harder to debate against)
homosexual behaviour in animals among complex species line anthropoids is at minimum of ~10%, so even accounting for preference imo it’s pretty clear mammals are able to conceptualise gender, since gender is about roles specifically rather than sex and this 10% number is about exclusively homosexual sheep (apparently the number is 25% among black swans where the number includes homosexual pairing/parenting/etc instead of just sexual relationships)
anyway, point being even among the most limited term animals tend to be able conceptualise gender
but that’s not at all what the character of a mascot is about: a mascot is inherently an anthropic projection of human behaviour onto an animal (thus basically why furries exist and are pretty closely associated with mascots)
imo firefox mascot can “somewhat legitimately” (and even perhaps “not uncharitably” - just ignorant maybe) be viewed either as less than 10% of animals displaying “transgender” behavour (ie the numbers displaying gendered behaviours that don’t match their sex - ignoring the concept of gender) and thus 10% of firefox mascots should be non-binary (yes i’m mixing those terms because remember this is the charitable but ignorant interpretation) and firefox doesn’t yet have 9 gendered mascots… or it can be viewed as 90% of mascots generally being gendered and thus a specifically non-gendered mascot in the “corpus of mascots” is warranted… but then it could be argued that actually the majority of mascots are non-gendered: perhaps not specifically, but implicitly simply because humans have grown to dislike misogyny and prefer female representation
i’m saying this not because i necessarily agree with the reaction, but because it’s important to understand the alternative viewpoint regardless of agreement in concept. it’s at the very least more complex than the simple argument acknowledges
imo representation is important, as we’ve pretty unambiguously agreed with female representation and even homosexual representation more broadly since about the 90s
the french revolution was famously not about porcefully taking power from those in power
plenty of that on e621
imagine calling one of the greatest science educators of the modern era “plain stupid”
the old logo still exists. this is a new mascot intended to increase user connection to the browser by providing a friendly anthropomorphised front for actions taken by the firefox team, browser, and congratulating users on taking actions. in furtherance of this idea, kit is represented by ambiguous pronouns when written about in order to avoid unnecessary gendering, and allow the user to imply their own gender as they like