In this article, we use the following terms:

1. Vegan/anti-speciesist - used to describe someone who believes that the oppression of nonhuman animals must end and is taking action against this system.
2. TERFs and SWERFs - acronyms for "trans-exclusionary radical feminists", and "sex worker exclusionary radical feminists". Used to describe people who seek to exclude these groups from the feminist movement and do not wish to end their oppression, but perpetuate it.
3. The speciesist left - people who identify as politically left-leaning, and generally act against systems of oppression (though in many cases, they exclude anti-speciesism in their work).
4. Human supremacist - humans believing they are the central most significant point in the universe, superior to all other sentient beings and separate from nature itself.

Does the speciesist Left hate anti-speciesists? Are problematic humans creating a barrier?

Whether or not the speciesist left hates anti-speciesists does not matter. Anti-speciesists (vegans) are not victims; they are "allies" or accomplices with other animals in their liberation. All anti-speciesists have been lashed out at for their anti-speciesism (veganism) by humans from all political leanings. Those who lash out at anti-speciesists are trying to undermine or "disprove" the efficacy or legitimacy of anti-speciesism, painting it as a laughable movement. Their comments include anything from suggesting humans cannot survive on a plant-based diet, laughing at the term "speciesism", to pointing out that anti-speciesism is inaccessible to some humans. Therefore, labelling anti-speciesism an ableist/classist /racist movement, not to be supported. Although such confrontations can be frustrating and sometimes upsetting on a personal level, anti-speciesists know not to centre themselves in a movement that is not about them: it is a movement focused on (but not limited to) the liberation of nonhuman animals.

We acknowledge that many problematic groups take up space in anti-speciesism. Some "vegans" propagate a culture of hero-worship and saviourism, which certainly does centre human individuals. Cultish organisations and "white veganism" are issues. Some "vegans" are not for collective liberation; they are happy to exclude and oppress marginalised humans because their work is "for the animals". Racism, ableism and sexism are rampant in mainstream "veganism". Some vegans do not even act in the nonhuman animals' best interest, for example, perpetuating the idea that nonhuman animals are "voiceless" either metaphorically, literally or politically, which is always silencing. Still, others who identify as "vegan" are not even for nonhuman emancipation, they embrace "welfarist" approaches which simply aim to "improve" the situation for enslaved nonhuman animals.

ID: An illustration (circulated online) of a well-known "celebrity vegan", in the religious style of Jesus Christ, with a halo and stigmata. The face is blurred because it does not matter who it is, someone will always be lifted to this role as long as we have saviourism. The problem is the (white)-human saviourism ideology which produced and popularised this image. Saviourism(as part of whiteness) is part of speciesism; it actively upholds it.

All movements have problematic factions within them, and veganism is no exception. Even those who are trying their best to be anti-oppression are continuously learning. We could argue that particular factions are creating a barrier for the speciesist Left to join the fight for nonhumans. However, the dislike of anti-speciesism on the broader Left is not truly a nuanced critique of problematic groups. Others in the Left are more than capable of seeing past this to acknowledge their speciesism, and of knowing that these problematic humans do not embody the cause itself. We can all recognise nefarious sects in other movements (see TERFs and SWERFs within feminism) without that leading to us rejecting the goals of that movement as a whole. Most people in the Left would agree it would be ridiculous to continue to actively oppress non-cis-men, purely because some "feminists" are transphobic or whorephobic.

ID: Germain Greer, a prominent TERF, addresses an audience in a conference hall. However, the existence of people like Germain Greer has not negated the entire feminist movement, and nor should it.

So, why does the speciesist Left continue to deny and make a mockery of anti-speciesism? Why are they so keen to prove that because "being vegan" (registered as following a plant-based diet) is not universally accessible, anti-speciesism is de facto null and void? Why do they like to say that being anti-speciesist detracts from one's work towards ending other types of oppression - when they would never suggest a zero-sum situation about other social justice movements? We rarely hear the Left imply that it is impossible to be anti-racist and simultaneously anti-ableist, for example. Nevertheless, the speciesist Left suggests that by being anti-speciesist, we are automatically not giving due care and attention to human oppression.

The problem is systemic! Do not blame individuals!

Another popular argument from the speciesist Left is that capitalism is primarily to blame for speciesism; that making individuals feel "guilty" for having to participate in a capitalist system that we cannot choose to reject entirely is ineffective and pointless. This argument, of course, ignores the fact that humans living in the capitalist global "West" usually do have the capacity to reject speciesism on a personal level, and to quite a great extent. The speciesist Left argues that speciesism is systemic, and it is the responsibility of governing bodies - not individuals - to end it. The "accessibility" argument is often wrapped up into this line of reasoning too, ignoring the fact that by its very definition veganism does not demand participation from those who are currently unable to participate. Saying veganism is inaccessible from a position of privilege, and refusing to act (i.e. go vegan) when you could do so, is speciesist, classist, ableist, and is essentially tokenisation. It is true to say that certain people cannot physically join in other liberation struggles and actions, but this is not an excuse for those who could participate, to reject the movements altogether: it only highlights the need to increase accessibility.

Sometimes the speciesist Left will further detract from speciesism, via attempting to amalgamate anti-speciesism with the issue of climate breakdown. Climate breakdown is harmful, and ultimately oppresses many groups; however, it is not a direct form of oppression of a specific group of beings. There are myriad ways to reduce harm to the natural world, and no one can define a single route as a moral imperative. Whereas directly causing the deaths of a specific group of beings (nonhuman animals, in the case of speciesism) is a very clear-cut form of oppression, which as humans, we must unlearn. The issues of climate breakdown and speciesism are not the same, and they are not analogous. Antispeciests acknowledge that the causes are connected, however, and want to see climate breakdown and ecocide brought to an end. We should note that the natural world matters because of those who live in it: "environmentalism" without anti-speciesism is merely green-washed human supremacy. However, making more or less environmentally conscious choices is not the same as choosing whether or not to oppress another sentient being.

The speciesist Left says we should not demand individual action (be vegan) when individuals are not the main driving force behind the problem. The speciesist Left infamously adore the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" excuse for their speciesism. However, while having some basis, this is ultimately a nonsensical argument. Racism and ableism are also systemic, and capitalism exacerbates these too, but nobody argues it is therefore acceptable for individuals to commit acts of racism or ableism. Arguably the individual is indeed not the leading proponent of harm in any of these systems, but that does not give the individual carte blanche to oppress others when they could easily avoid it. Concluding that if an issue is systemic or propped up by capitalism, individuals need not avoid being personally oppressive, is not only illogical but immoral. It would not be played out like this by leftists concerning any other movement. Furthermore, if an issue is systemic and requires governmental change, leftists would usually participate in lobbying, protesting, and such large-scale actions to try to enact the necessary change.

ID: 2 photographs are showing 2019 UK protests against fracking. People are holding signs that read "Renewable energy now! No more excuses"; "We don't want to pay for new gas stations"; and 'Climate breakdown: your responsibility'. These protests were to lobby the British government for systemic change when it comes to energy production and environmental practices.

We rarely hear of the speciesist Left deciding to participate in these types of fights for systemic change on behalf of nonhumans; however, these are the only type of action they purport to be in favour of with regards to anti-speciesism. Presumably, their lack of participation even in these "acceptable" forms of activism is because they could not participate with much credibility – being well aware they are actively causing harm on a personal level when they do not need to do so.

Many people in the Left take active roles in fighting other forms of oppression; they do not, for example, simply "avoid being sexist". Leftists are actively anti-sexist: speaking out against sexism, participating in political lobbying or protests, trying to effect systemic change, forming action groups, raising funds, and being allies and co-conspirators for individuals who need it. However, many of these humans refuse to even take the base level "harm avoidance" approach to anti- speciesism. In other words, they refuse to reject speciesism in their daily lives. They continue to contribute to the system of oppression that is speciesism directly, either through their lifestyle, diet, language or actions. Why won't these otherwise anti-oppression minded people simply stop perpetuating speciesism? (Let alone take an active role in working towards animal liberation).

Ultimately, it comes down to issues around personal practice and people not wanting to "sacrifice" something they enjoy. The truth is the speciesist Left, like the Right, enjoy exploiting and consuming other animals - "I just love bacon!" "it is a personal choice!" "It is oppressive to tell others what to eat!". Furthermore, at their core, they do not want to give this up. Most humans oppress other animals every day by eating their flesh and secretions, and they enjoy this practice. Most vegans also grew up "enjoying" this practice, as some leftists "enjoyed" enacting oppression until they unlearned it.

Because speciesism is so interwoven in human lives, renouncing speciesism is sometimes a much bigger personal ask than avoiding purposeful participation in other forms of oppression.

It involves humans having to reject their ingrained lifestyle and "food" choices, to which they tie themselves emotionally. Furthermore, most people simply do not want to do this, even the (speciesist) Left. At its core, this is a matter of cultural speciesism and the speciesist Left's unexamined oppressive relations with other animals; not seeing them as marginalised persons.

Many in the speciesist Left do see the arguments for anti-speciesism, but because they do not want to accept them - ridicule is the only "logical" course of action. "Anti-vegan" memes and put-downs such as laughing at the term "speciesism" are rife in online spaces operated by the speciesist Left. Ridicule has the effect of demoting a topic, pointing out its ridiculousness. When the speciesist Left derail discussions of anti-speciesism to call attention to issues or hurdles within the movement derisively, they "draw attention away from what is good or reasonable about it". They create a distortion, attempting to invalidate anti-speciesism. It is unclear if they do this consciously, and how much is subconscious - fuelled (presumably) by the guilt that some may feel for their oppressive behaviour and ideology. Either way, responding to antispeciesism with derision serves to internally fortify the speaker's decision not to act in the interest of nonhuman animals. If they can invalidate anti-speciesism, at least internally, they can justify their continued speciesism.