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
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