The Intolerance of Vegans

Being welcoming of diversity means also welcoming diversity of ideas, perspectives, and opinions.

The urge to belong is vital, but it can harden into tribalism that polices who’s “vegan enough.” In this article, we explore where those purity tests come from, why they alienate people, and how choosing inclusion keeps compassion front and center—and the definition of veganism where it belongs.

I’ve dedicated the last twenty-six years of my life to creating a space where people feel included, heard, validated, and supported—wherever they sit on the spectrum of veganism and whatever their motivation for choosing not to eat, wear, or purchase animal products. I don’t ask people’s positions on current events, I don’t know their political affiliations, and I don’t ask how they vote. My role is to help guide people back to their deepest compassion and desire for wellness so they can reflect those values in their daily lives.

I’ve also spent these last several decades exploring what prevents people from fully manifesting those values and what causes them to struggle with or even step away from veganism. These insights culminated in my book The Joyful Vegan: How to Stay Vegan in a World That Wants You to Eat Meat, Dairy, and Eggs, which I wish every vegan would read—not because they’re afraid they’ll stop being vegan, but because they’ll better understand those who do.

One of the clearest themes that emerged from my research is the powerful human need to belong—a drive so strong it often leads us to prioritize membership in familiar social groups over our deeper values, even if those values are nonviolence and the pursuit of optimal wellness.

When that healthy need to belong hardens into tribalism, it becomes easy—even for vegans—to fall into familiar patterns: finding our corner, digging in our heels, shutting others out, and being intolerant of divergent views. Sadly, this tendency is becoming more pronounced in today’s divisive climate—which is utterly of our own making and entirely avoidable.

And so, in light of troublesome rhetoric among some vegans—about how other and all vegans should respond to world events—

—I’m sharing this excerpt from The Joyful Vegan, which was conceived in 2008, written in 2018, and published in 2019. In other words, written well before today’s headlines, these ideas speak to patterns that transcend any single moment and will remain relevant well beyond the current headlines.

May it invite reflection, listening, and understanding.

What Vegan Means

Being inclusive means welcoming different opinions and perspectives. Unfortunately, the binary identity divisions currently dominating politics (us/them, in-group/out-group) are all too prevalent in the vegan community as well.

• You’re either welfarist or abolitionist.

• You’re either plant-based or vegan.

• You’re either vegan for health or vegan for animals.

• If you’re vegan for health, you can’t call yourself “vegan” (according to the vegan police).

• If you’re vegan for animals, you’re probably a “junk food vegan” (according to whole food, plant-based eaters who strictly avoid processed foods).

We profess diversity, but what we really seem to prize is homogeneity—particularly homogeneity of thought and ideology. There is a presumption among some vegans that if you’re vegan, you’re also liberal, socialist, atheist, feminist, intersectionalist, progressive, and leftist—and that if you’re not these things, you’re unwelcome, or at least you don’t really belong.

If believing that it’s better to eat plants rather than animals is the only thing we agree on, that’s enough. That’s a lot. That’s really what vegan means.

Some vegans, however, have made it their mission to change the definition of what it means to be vegan, asserting that to be truly vegan, it’s not enough to just forswear animal flesh, fluids, and fabrics. According to them, you also have to tick a number of other boxes that fit their criteria.

Though the intentions are good—wanting to inspire more people to get involved to help stop violence against animals and to create connections between violence against animals and other social issues—the unfortunate result is a narrowing rather than a broadening of the vegan pool.

As you add criteria to the definition of veganism, fewer and fewer people qualify. And by making the door through which people can walk even smaller, fewer and fewer people will cross the threshold—or even want to. The number of people who meet the basic and widely understood definition of veganism is already small enough. Do we really want to make it smaller?

Diversity of Thought

Being respectful and welcoming of different political, social, or ethical views doesn’t make us hypocrites; it makes us diverse. Inviting diversity means also inviting (and tolerating) diversity of ideas, perspectives, lifestyle choices, and life experiences. There are plenty of organizations, associations, and groups you can join that celebrate conformity of thought, and that’s fine; there’s a place for them online and in our real lives.

But many vegans aren’t necessarily looking to be advocates or activists; they’re just looking for a community where they don’t feel like a freak for not eating meat, dairy, and eggs. That should be the only price of admission.

Being welcoming of diversity means also welcoming diversity of ideas, perspectives, and life experiences.

To those who argue that we shouldn’t welcome or accept people who—though they may not be eating animals—may be yet contributing to exploitation in other ways (wearing leather, buying personal care products that were tested on animals, going to the zoo, etc.), I say this: we’re all on a journey.

The process of awakening is just that—a process.

I’ve heard from thousands of people who stop eating meat, dairy, and eggs for health reasons; then, at some later point, their hearts and minds become open enough to start considering rejecting other forms of culturally accepted animal abuse. It may take time, but it’s their journey—not yours—and a sure-fire way to impede their progress is to call them “fake vegans” and judge them for not “getting it” more quickly.

The same applies to those in the “plant-based” community who criticize overweight vegans and excoriate anyone who eats oil, sugar, gluten, or processed foods. Not only is it unkind, it’s also not your business. Everyone’s journey is their own. You can certainly model positive eating habits and provide inspiration and information, but I encourage you to temper any desire to criticize and judge. People don’t respond positively to either.

I’ve also seen the tendency toward litmus tests: you can only be vegan if you’re also X, Y, and Z—and if you line up on every other issue. That’s not compassion; it’s gatekeeping and purity tests masquerading as ethics, and it pushes people away.

The bottom line is that the desire to not hurt animals and to live healthfully are universal, and those who aspire to do so should be embraced regardless of their ‘why,’ their beliefs, or their positions on other issues.

• Being—and staying—a joyful vegan (and a joyful human) means spending energy not only noting differences but also recognizing similarities and acknowledging that the individuals in our respective identity groups are complex beings, not one-dimensional stereotypes.

• Being—and staying—a joyful vegan means being confident in our vegan identity without undermining our other identities; it means embracing a broader definition of diversity to include diversity of thought and ideology.

• Being—and staying—a joyful vegan means fostering relationships in all of our communities and valuing all of our identities.

There is no prescribed profile of what a vegan looks like, dresses like, worships like, votes like, or acts like. Or at least there shouldn’t be. We all contain multitudes.