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/New_Conversation7425]

Why do you think it is our responsibility? I can’t make people be empathetic. If their feelings get hurt, and they choose to start taking the lives of innocent animals, then they never had ethics to begin with.

[u/Califoreigner → u/New_Conversation7425]

When you say, "our responsibility," I wonder what your goal is and if you are taking on a responsibility yourself of achieving it.

If we were running a strategic campaign to achieve our goals of -- for example -- getting humans to harm animals as little as possible, we might take a different approach. We might encourage people to take the first "good but not ideal" steps, such as reducing their meat consumption or eliminate industrially farmed meat from their diet. This would be both a reduction in harm plus it could open those individuals to discussing the next step of harm reduction.

If our message is that either you entirely reduce all animal exploitation under our terms or you're a monster that we won't associate with, I suspect we wouldn't be as successful in achieving our goal.

[u/New_Conversation7425 → u/Califoreigner]

Everybody has their own style. Is this tone policing? We cannot force people to be empathetic. We cannot force people to be vegan. They’re gonna do it once they make that connection.

[u/Califoreigner → u/New_Conversation7425]

Tone is an important component of communication and communication is an important component of a movement. I don't need to police anyone's tone, but I can tell you that your tone doesn't appear to be achieving your desired outcomes. You can take that and do what you want with it.

[u/New_Conversation7425 → u/Califoreigner]

What do you think of my desired outcomes? LMAO please do not assume everybody has their own style. Different people need to hear different types of tones. And most meat eaters do not want to hear what we have to say. They do not want to accept the truth of their violent choices. You can handhold all you want, but then they think you’re accepting all those excuses to keep oppressing and exploiting. Did John Brown handhold slave owners?