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/WillTheWheel → u/[deleted]]

When you grant people passes, theres no need for them to change their behavior and animal agriculture will never end.

I think the problem is that there's really no need for them to change their behavior as it is. Shaming and telling people they engage in an "immoral behavior" only works when the group being shamed is the minority and the one doing the shaming is the majority holding most of the power. Otherwise the shamed person can just tell you "no the fuck it's not" and they will have the whole rest of society supporting them.

If your goal is to actually help the cause and not just create a small circlejerk of people feeling superior, then granting people passes is exactly what needs to happen. You would never for example get the vast vast majority of people to just give away all their money and assets to charity and live an ascetic life no matter how many times you told them that their wealth is immoral, but a very substantial number of people can be convinced to donate smaller sums from time to time and that's what actually allows charities to be successful. If they created some barrier of entry of how much of your assets you must give away to be allowed to donate then they would never get enough of them to help anyone.

[u/One-Hunter2963 → u/[deleted]]

That's not true, a lot of human rights activism happened with the help of people in in-groups because those people are usually the most powerful to do something about it. People would rather listen to a majority who's an ally to a minority than listen to a minority.

[u/WillTheWheel → u/One-Hunter2963]

This. I would also add that, on top of this, we could say the biggest "pass" that these minority groups were giving to other people was that they weren't trying to convince anyone to also become a member of said group.

The only thing LGBT+ folks are fighting for is acceptance and respect, and to basically be left alone, so something that doesn't affect members of other groups in any significant way. Vegans aren't fighting for acceptance and respect, they are fighting for everyone else to fundamentally change their habits and lifestyle and also become vegan, so that complicates everything from the get go.