One of the most common criticisms thrown at veganism is that it is ableist.
The argument usually goes something like this: some disabled people cannot eat certain foods, prepare meals in particular ways, access certain products or avoid every form of animal use. Therefore, veganism excludes disabled people. There is one rather large problem with this argument.
That is not what veganism means.
The Vegan Society defines veganism as “a 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.”
Read the important bit again.
As far as is possible and practicable
Veganism does not demand that every human being on Earth lives an identical life. It asks us to avoid participating in animal exploitation wherever we reasonably can. What is possible and practicable for me might be different from what is possible and practicable for you. And that is already built into veganism.
Disabled People Can Be Vegan
If somebody needs medication containing an animal-derived ingredient and there is no suitable alternative, taking that medication does not somehow disqualify them from veganism. If somebody genuinely cannot avoid a particular animal product because of disability, health, poverty, institutionalisation, food access or another circumstance beyond their control, veganism does not demand the impossible. But why would that mean they cannot oppose every other form of animal exploitation that they can avoid?
Someone might have no choice over a particular medication while still refusing leather. Someone might have extremely restricted food choices while still opposing animal experimentation. Someone might require support preparing food while still refusing to visit zoos. Veganism is not a purity contest. It is an ethical position against the exploitation of animals, applied as far as our circumstances allow. Suggesting disabled people are incapable of participating in that movement erases disabled vegans.
Stop Using Other People’s Circumstances As An Excuse
There is an important difference between recognising accessibility barriers and using somebody else’s barriers to defend your own choices.
If a disabled person tells us that something is inaccessible, we should listen. If someone living in poverty cannot access something, that deserves consideration. But if you personally have access to alternatives, pointing towards someone who does not tells us absolutely nothing about what you should do. This happens constantly.
People claim veganism is classist while ignoring poor and homeless vegans. They claim veganism is racist while ignoring vegans from every imaginable ethnic background. They call veganism anti-Indigenous while apparently forgetting that Indigenous vegans exist. Meanwhile, vast areas of land across the Americas have been taken from Indigenous peoples and used to farm animals, with this destruction continuing in places such as the Amazon. They call veganism a coloniser mindset while ignoring how colonisation itself expanded animal exploitation and transformed enormous areas of stolen land into places where animals are bred, confined and killed.
Marginalised people should not be turned into rhetorical shields for completely unrelated people who simply do not want to examine their own use of animals.
The Ableism Behind Animal Exploitation
Ableist thinking is one of the most common ways people justify treating other animals as inferior. Animals are compared against a particular idea of human ability. They are supposedly less intelligent. Their languages are supposedly less sophisticated. They cannot write books. They cannot build computers. They lack opposable thumbs. They may live shorter lives. They may understand the world differently. And from those differences comes an extraordinary leap:
Therefore, we may use them.
Think about what that argument actually says. Worth is being assigned according to cognitive ability, communication, physical capacity, creativity, independence or similarity to a supposedly ideal human. That is an incredibly dangerous foundation for morality. Human rights do not disappear when someone has an intellectual disability. A person’s inability to speak does not make violence against them acceptable. Someone requiring lifelong care does not become a resource for somebody more independent. We already understand that differences in ability do not determine whether an individual deserves basic consideration.
So why abandon that principle at the species boundary?
Accessibility Is A Reason To Build Something Better
Some people have fewer food choices. Some rely on carers. Some live in institutions. Some have disabilities that make cooking difficult. Some require medications they cannot replace. Poverty restricts choice in countless ways. Those are arguments for making society more accessible. They are not arguments for animal exploitation.
In fact, imagine what would happen if everyone began avoiding animal exploitation as far as was genuinely possible and practicable.
Demand would change.
Institutions would adapt.
More accessible products would appear.
Catering would change.
Medication research would change.
Food availability would change.
The number of situations in which animal use was genuinely unavoidable would shrink. Accessibility improves when society decides accessibility matters. Telling disabled people that veganism simply is not for them achieves the opposite. Veganism already leaves the door open to everyone.
You do what you reasonably can. I do what I reasonably can. And together we work towards a world where what is possible becomes greater.
That is not ableism.
Declaring disabled people incapable of participating in a justice mmovement is.