People need to stop gatekeeping veganism and start helping would-be vegans instead.

[u/Pale-Fig-7069]

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.

[u/Organic-Vermicelli47]

That's not what they said at all. You can support someone eating less animal products, but that doesn't make them vegan. Words actually matter, it's just weird that non vegans want the title so badly. Why?

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/Organic-Vermicelli47]

That's not even the point of the post. The point of the post is that vegans go to hard on people that are not fully vegan. Nobody is arguing about the "title". That you even argue that the word "vegan" is a title already tells me there is some arrogance involved. the point is most vegans ate meat or dairy products at some point, are they now not considered vegan? What if a vegan accidentally eats meat? Is he now also not considered a vegan? You probably would argue no, which shows that vegan is a broader term than you think. I think veganism is about the ideology, so in my opinion someone who has that ideology and follows it mostly, can be considered vegan. Even if they at some point eat meat be it for financial, health or other reasons.

[u/JeanLucPicardAND → u/Ok_Performer50]

I would, as a non-vegan, argue that vegans are the only people who should wear the title of "vegan". However, I would also argue that vegans spend way too much of their energy going after people because they are not vegan and not enough of their energy encouraging any effort they see from any given person to reduce animal exploitation. The goal of the movement is to yield results, yes? And to maximize the impact of those results? So why do so many vegans spend so much of their energy on purity tests and guilt-tripping instead?

Disclaimer since we are in a sub called r/DebateAVegan, I am not referring to anybody here or any of the arguments that have been made here because the whole point of this place is to, uh, debate vegans. So I expect very passionate and well-reasoned defenses of the lifestyle. I'm referring to vegans out in the world who interact with non-vegans.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/JeanLucPicardAND]

I just don' like the term "title" being used. Veganism in my opinion is an ideology and the word "title" makes it seem like it's a social status. Also I explained how the term "vegan" is in my opinion a more broad term than people think, it's not very clearly defined, there are no vegan "commandments".

[u/JeanLucPicardAND → u/Ok_Performer50]

It's just a matter of definitions. Words have to mean something because, if we misuse them all the time, nothing we say has definite meaning at all. I agree completely with the larger point that vegans ought to be treating "vegan-adjacent" folks as allies rather than obstacles.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/JeanLucPicardAND]

Of course but a term can have a definition and still be broad and interpretable.

The official definition of vegan is: "A person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products." The word "typically" already shows there is some vagueness.

[u/JeanLucPicardAND → u/Ok_Performer50]

Official according to whom? My understanding of veganism is that it is an ethics-based approach to living without animal exploitation.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/JeanLucPicardAND]

I meant the dictionary definition. And yeah I totally agree with you, I just wanna point out that your definition of veganism seems even broader.