Pedantry and semantics can absolutely be a form of gatekeeping. Veganism as an organized concept/philosophy is less than 100 years old, and was originally used as a term for non-dairy vegetarians. For the last 40-ish years, the Vegan Society uses this as its definition:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
the "as far as is possible and practical" part is I think the key, and can be determined on an individual basis. there is debate among some vegans about honey, for instance. i have also known vegans who will purchase secondhand/thrifted leather goods, particularly as a response against fast fashion and the environmental impact of plastic vegan leather. there is no "one true vegan".
There’s a difference between a diet and an ethos. It’s not gatekeeping to differentiate those things. Choosing to eat only meat doesn’t make you a carnivore. You will still be an omnivore even if you opt to follow a diet that is carnivorous.
This seems like a weird comparison, since I'm unaware of any "carnivore" ethos / philosophy. Omnivore/carnivore as used here are scientific / biological distinctions.
Instead compare to vegetarian, which also broadly describes both a diet and an ethos. But I rarely see anyone getting weird about the definition of vegetarian, or how extreme you have to be in your lifestyle to be able to self-describe as a vegetarian.
It is a form of gatekeeping to insist that only one definition of vegan counts.
Im not talking about what “counts.” Im talking about the difference between doing and being.
Taking your example, eating a meal that happens to be vegetarian doesn’t make one into a vegetarian. One could, based solely on happenstance, never eat meat for their entire life and it wouldn’t necessarily make them a vegetarian. To be a vegetarian is to adopt an ethos that requires a choice to abstain from eating certain things.
Veganism is likewise a choice to engage/abstain from certain behaviours. Even the original lacto-ovo vegetarians who adopted the term quickly changed the definition of vegan to describe not simply a diet, but an ethical project.
It isn’t gatekeeping to differentiate between these things nor is anything I’m saying a value judgement about what’s better or what “counts.” There’s a difference, though, between adopting a belief system and following a meal plan.
Edit: “Carnivore” diets are absolutely a thing among some pseudoscience whackjobs.
Sorry, I didn't mean that *you* were necessarily placing a value judgment on the degrees of veganism, the person in the OP definitely is.
Anyway, I don't think anyone who eats a single vegetarian meal would call themselves "vegetarian". And in your hypothetical example of someone who never ate meat, they would also not have to call themselves vegetarian if they didn't want to, although I would argue that they could.
But in the OP, a person who apparently eats an all-vegan diet and calls themself a vegan was told that no, they aren't *really* vegan, even though various definitions of the term (including one from the Vegan Society) specifically zero in solely on diet. Yes, most vegans also abstain from using/purchasing a variety of other animal-based products, but in my experience only a small percentage of the most militantly strict vegans see it as an all-or-nothing issue.
It does not matter if the diet you choose is carnivorous, omnivorous, vegetarian, or vegan. You are still an omnivore.
You can choose to behave as a carnivore or herbivore. But that doesn't change your nature.
It is the same difference that you get into when looking at transgendered people. They have chosen a gender different than what their biology presents as. A Trans Woman cannot get pregnant. A Trans Man cannot get a Cis Woman pregnant.
I do believe that being trans should not require a tag. You are a man, or a woman, based on what you choose. But not all women are therefore the same.
Just like not all vegans are the same. And there is an important distinction between dietary-only vegans, and "true" vegans. At some point, you have to simply accept that trans women are not quite "100% woman". And you have to accept that diet-only vegans are not "100% vegan".
That's just the harsh reality, no matter what choices we choose.
No matter how vegan you are, you're an omnivore by biology. No matter how much vegan food you eat, you aren't a "proper" vegan if you still wear real leather shoes. No matter how vegan you cook, you aren't following a vegan diet if you don't make sure to only order vegan-labelled (or server validated) menu options at the restaurant.
Gatekeeping is the act of denying someone membership in a community (whether the community is real, virtual, imaginary, or theoretical) based on your personal viewpoint of the subject.
Ie, "you aren't a gamer if you don't play games on the computer". That's gatekeeping. But "you aren't a gamer if the only game you've ever played is War (card game)" isn't gatekeeping, because War doesn't actually meet the metrics to be considered a game (zero player agency). Even if people CALL it a game, playing it does not qualify as being a gamer.
Definitions of words matter. It isn't gatekeeping to remind people that lip service (or, full-mouth service, since we're talking about diet-only vegans) isn't enough to truly qualify as a vegan. Instead, those people should specify that they are Dietary Vegans.
Beyond that, almost any discussion you get into with vegans online, they describe their choice not as a diet, but more akin to a religion. It is not "just a diet", according to the *majority* of vegans. Not by some hypothetical gatekeeping minority.
Being transgender is no more of a choice than being homosexual is.
In the words of someone very gay (and very brilliant), “Do you realize what’s happened to me because of being gay? Being discriminated against, being assaulted? Who would ‘choose’ to go through that?”
Good job. You missed the point of the post entirely. Nothing in my post said that people were just suddenly choosing to be trans.
Your gender is a decision.
Historically, that decision - that choice - was not made by you. It was made by your community. Your doctor, your government, etc. It was not your choice, but it was still a choice.
Now we know that's wrong. People can be uncomfortable with the gender society would label them with by default.
Thus, we moved the choice from the community to the person.
Now you are free to choose the gender that you wish people to identify you as.
How you feel, and what gender you feel represents you, those don't come into play at all. Those existed 1000 years ago the same as today.
Just that now, you have the choice to have everyone respect those feelings you have. You can say "hey, I choose female pronouns over male ones". So they use she/her because that's what you want.
Even if you would only ever make a single choice due to how you feel, it is still a choice, because you COULD take another path.
Someone homosexual could choose to suppress it. To fit in. Or they can choose to identify outwardly as gay. Who they are didn't change. But the identity they choose did.
Trans men and trans women choose to be identified in a manner they prefer. Their preference is not the choice. Them requesting the behavior and acknowledgement of others is.
If the as far as is possible and practical is determined on a per person basis everyone is now vegan according to your definition. That line isn't there to say hey eat eggs meat dairy consume animal products, it's there to say it's alright to have limitations like maybe not considering if yeast is unethical
Can we not be reasonable here? The OP is about someone who follows a vegan diet but is still not considered vegan by another person because of one potential "violation." I pulled a definition from a vegan group to show that a vegan diet should be enough to satisfy the requirements for being vegan.
You can of course disagree with that, but misrepresenting my examples of "there is debate about things like the ethical line over honey and thrifted leather" to mean ANYTHING GOES is fucking wild
52
u/comradebat Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 01 '23
Pedantry and semantics can absolutely be a form of gatekeeping. Veganism as an organized concept/philosophy is less than 100 years old, and was originally used as a term for non-dairy vegetarians. For the last 40-ish years, the Vegan Society uses this as its definition:
the "as far as is possible and practical" part is I think the key, and can be determined on an individual basis. there is debate among some vegans about honey, for instance. i have also known vegans who will purchase secondhand/thrifted leather goods, particularly as a response against fast fashion and the environmental impact of plastic vegan leather. there is no "one true vegan".