cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/45468903
Who talks to a mascot?
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
523 points (96.9% liked)
Programmer Humor
31019 readers
850 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A correction to make from the research I did:
Mozilla did not say that Kit is non-binary or uses they/them pronouns. Nor did they use they/them pronouns for Kit in official material. They pointedly avoided using pronouns for Kit at all, to keep it ambiguous. It seems like their intention is for the user to see Kit as whatever gender they want Kit to be.
Kit (he/she/they/them/it) is the user’s constant companion. Wherever they choose to roam, Kit will accompany and guide them with clever, playful encouragement and support — giving the user the confidence to run free.
https://brand.mozilla.com/d/5UkPdpbtt8LS/visual-elements#/-/mascot-1
Ah, I had not found that page from my research. That seems to explicitly represent the intention that Kit can be whatever gender people want Kit to be.
I think it would have been better if they didn't specifically list out he/she/they/them/it. They could have just used the name in the sentence like that already do. That would have made it flow naturally.
That's a weird way of saying non-binary. Especially considering that they/them pronouns can be used for anybody and that's kind of the point
Let me explain the angle that I am coming at this from:
I am trans. I am not specifically non-binary, but I appreciate all types of trans and non-binary representation in media, and want to support it. I appreciate it because it shows that the creator is willing to stand up for my people, and because it helps to normalize our existence to the audience of the media. Both of those reasons depend on how explicit the representation is, because both depend on the average viewer of the media being aware of the character being trans and/or non-binary.
To me, this does not seem like explicit non-binary representation at all. Kit could be considered to be whatever gender the user wants, maybe even subconsciously. I don't think Mozilla's intention is for it to be subtle non-binary representation, either, I think that their intention is for users to be able to view Kit however they want - which would be a binary gender in most cases. They leave the door open for non-binary users to see Kit as non-binary too, which is better than being openly hostile, but in the current environment trans and non-binary people need actual allies to push back against the rampant hostility they face. So I don't see this as a reason to specifically support Firefox. They're just doing the bare minimum by not being openly hostile.
To contrast with that, take the mascot of Honkai: Star Rail, Pom-Pom. The developer, MiHoYo, is located in China, so they are legally barred from showing explicit LGBTQ+ representation. However, they go right up to that line and even arguably over it on many occasions, going basically as far as they can without saying it explicitly. Pom-Pom is no exception. All of the characters in the game refer to Pom-Pom with they/them pronouns specifically, including characters who know Pom-Pom very well. That goes far beyond what Mozilla did with Kit, because the implication that Pom-Pom is enby is quite clear and consistent. Mozilla never once used they/them pronouns to refer to Kit from what I have seen, and Mozilla could say outright that Kit is non-binary if they wanted to, so them not doing so is a choice.
Reminds me on sesame streets response to the "are Bert and Ernie gay" thing.
"They're not gay. They're not straight. They're puppets."
Oh I completely agree with you! My comment was more directed at Mozilla over this whole kind of weird thing, not at anything you said. I'm sorry
Oh that's kind of neat.
Better than some other decisions Mozilla has made recently...
“not actively harmful” and “notionally the bare minimum” are pretty low bars and i’m glad that, for once in modern memory, mozilla cleared them
Wait, so Firefox is switching to (web)Kit?
What, what gender was the original logo? Did anyone here even think of the firefox logo having a gender? Or am i just out of touch?
I often found myself thinking of the Firefox's dangling balls.
The balls were cut off along with the legs in the logo revamp a couple years back.
Classic masculine fox logo got cancelled for not having pronouns. We're thriving.
It was engendered, and no.
Assigning a gender identity to a browser icon will surely change society.
So brave
That's a different browser
So edgy
Pure Opera!
That's a different browser
So zen.
It's interpreted.
Firefox has been rewritten as a Perl/Tk script.
Even I, fluent in both, am appalled at the idea.
Brainlets are getting pissed off over the gender pronouns of a cartoon fox while the real thing to be pissed off about is that this mascot represents their intention to go all-in on shoving AI features into Firefox. Kit is going to be their Claude, Siri, "Hey Google", etc.
Source?
This is how you do a non gendered mascot, it's clearly a fox. Fucking Salesforce and its horrible "Astro" which has no gender, also, no ethnicity, wears several costumes on top of each other AND has no mouth.
It's the perfect corporate identity : a being deprived of cultural origin, identity and opinions.
"Astro" which has no gender, also, no ethnicity, wears several costumes on top of each other AND has no mouth.
... And it must scream ... Because it's involved with Salesforce.
What was particularly binary about the old mascot?
This is not the logo, it's a new mascot. Firefox did not have a mascot before, just a logo.
Why the fuck does Firefox need non binary mascot?
Compile them from source
Was war denn das alte Maskottchen? Das Tier im Logo hätte ich zumindest nie als ein spezifisches Geschlecht bestimmen können.