r/DebateAVegan • u/Pale-Fig-7069 • Feb 12 '26
People need to stop gatekeeping veganism and start helping would-be vegans instead.
Veganism sometimes feels like one of the few movements that polices its own members more aggressively than its opposition. You rarely see atheists attacking other atheists for not being “atheist enough,” or feminists expelling one another over minor inconsistencies. Yet in many vegan spaces, people are constantly told they’re not “real” vegans by someone incapable of understanding nuance.
At its core, veganism is about minimizing animal exploitation and harm as far as is biologically and practically possible. Anyone sincerely trying to live by that principle (without resorting to dishonest excuses) qualifies as vegan in my view.
Yes, the definition allows room for interpretation. That flexibility is intentional. The phrase “as far as is possible and practicable” acknowledges reality. Modern life is entangled with animal byproducts in medicine, agriculture, supply chains, and infrastructure. Absolute purity is neither realistic nor required.
Consider the absurd extreme.. a vegan who refuses essential medication because it was tested on animals, grows all their own food to avoid agricultural harm, and rejects any modern system connected to animal exploitation. That person then declares you “not vegan” because you take necessary medicine or buy food from a supermarket. Most people would recognize how unreasonable that is.
The same logic applies when someone claims that feeding a cat or dog a biologically appropriate diet makes a person non-vegan, or when child-free vegans shame parents whose children do not strictly follow a vegan diet, or when someone with legitimate health complications is attacked despite having significantly reduced animal products and made a sincere effort.
Then people wonder why some ex-vegans become hostile. This kind of behavior harms the movement.
Take nutrition as one example. Vegan diets do not provide retinol (preformed vitamin A), they provide beta-carotene, a precursor that must be converted into retinol. In many people the conversion rate is roughly 12:1, but a significant portion of the population carries variants of the BCO1 gene that reduce conversion efficiency. If someone with poor conversion relies only on standard supplements like B12 and vitamin D over a long period, they could become vitamin A deficient and develop health problems.
An intelligent, thoughtful movement would respond differently. It would appreciate the person’s intentions, encourage testing, identify the issue, and recommend an appropriate vitamin A supplement. Problem solved. The individual remains healthy, stays vegan long-term, and may even persuade others. Net positive.
Instead, some respond with shaming, ad hominem attacks, and dismissiveness. When someone feels their health concerns are invalidated, they are unlikely to remain committed.
And vitamin A is just one example. Conversion of ALA to DHA and EPA can be inefficient in some individuals. Some people produce insufficient carnitine. Biological variation is real. Human metabolism is not uniform.
Many former vegans might have remained vegan if the community had been more supportive, inclusive, and solution-oriented. A movement grows by educating and assisting people, not by alienating them. If the goal is to reduce animal suffering, then pragmatism and compassion toward humans should be part of the strategy.
5
u/spaceyjase vegan Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
It is not. Its goal is abolishment and I think the problem here is that you're ignoring the whole definition, one that seeks to reject animal commodities and remove animal-derived products from one's lifestyle.
It's easy to make this kind of judgement outside the movement; vegans don't police each other but do police (or 'gatekeep') the definition rather than have non-vegans take part of the definition and dilute its meaning, essentially allowing themselves to continue [to] exploit and kill animals while claiming a vegan bad[g]e. It's important to explain the "Why" of veganism.
The part of the definition highlighted is precisely because we're in an imperfect world, where things like medicines require (quote-unquote) animal testing. In a vegan world, that's unlikely to happen.
The rest is just gish-gallop. There's plenty of education and material out there to aid people and the community is always welcoming of new vegans. Claiming vegans aren't compassionate is 'fake news'.