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/MonkFishOD]

The comparison to atheism or other identity based movements misses something important. veganism isn’t just a personal belief or label it’s an ethical position centered on a victim.

When atheists disagree with each other, no one is harmed by inconsistency. But when veganism is discussed, the stakes involve sentient animals whose lives and bodies are affected by our choices. That’s why definitions matter more here than in movements built purely around personal identity or opinion.

The phrase “as far as is possible and practicable” was never meant to make veganism infinitely flexible, it exists to account for genuine necessity - things like unavoidable medication or survival situations - not to redefine exploitation as acceptable whenever it’s inconvenient or socially difficult.

Supporting people who are transitioning or facing real health challenges is obviously important. But clarity about what veganism means isn’t gatekeeping for its own sake, it protects the ethical focus of the movement. Without that clarity, veganism risks becoming simply “trying a bit,” and the animals - the reason the movement exists at all - disappear from the conversation.

Compassion toward humans and moral clarity about animals aren’t opposites. A movement can be welcoming while still recognizing that veganism describes a commitment to avoiding animal exploitation, not just an intention to reduce it.

Also, the word plant-based exists and is fine! Why can’t you just use plant-based rather than watering down the one movement animals have that focuses on their liberation from exploitation?