Let´s Make Veganism Less Strict

[Jamie in Chile]

As long as they don´t have leather, vegans are able to buy and use products like cars and consumer electronics, even if they have say a glue derived from animals.

However, for reasons that don´t appear to me to be consistent, a much greater strictness is required for food than anything else. If a processed food is 0.01% animal product, it is not vegan and you can´t have it. I don´t agree with this.

I think all vegans should be expected to do on products they buy regularly is glance through the ingredients and make sure that as far as they can guess there are no animal products. It shouldn´t be necessary to scan every packet you buy with an app, or google every product as some seem to expect.

I also think when you are in a restaurant with non-vegan friends, or on holiday in a foreign country, or at a friend´s house, vegans should be able to eat any bread, pasta, get any ice cream, and eat the birthday cake. This will make vegan seem more accessible, and lead to more people trying it.

I worry that if eating non-vegan cookies and doughnuts means people have to call themselves vegetarian then once they have defined their identity that way they might start eating eggs for breakfast every day.

I also think people caught in this middle ground between vegetarian and veganism as it´s currently practised will be less likely to join vegan groups and get into activism. And it probably inhibits celebrities from coming out as vegan and supporting the cause.

I think to be vegan you should only need as a minimum to avoid meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, leather, wool and fur and to commit to vegan toiletries at home and not going to the zoo. We could dispute the exact list and add a few things but it shouldn´t be a huge list.

That doesn´t mean we should encourage people to just rush to the store and buy milk chocolate ice cream. It should still be slightly discouraged, but not forbidden. And especially not “that´s great, but you should call yourself plant-based instead of vegan” which is basically like saying “you can´t be in our club”. People want to belong to a group. If they don´t fit in with the vegans, they might end up somewhere else.

We should want veganism to be accessible to everyone including the working class, or anyone with a difficult life for any reason, people in developing countries who are struggling, ethnic minorities and people that don´t speak English. I think all of this will help with that goal.

This would also make veganism cheaper. That counts for something in how many people will do it.

And the more people do it, the less the animal suffering and death.

A common reason for giving up is the social difficulty. A less strict definition would make people more likely to stick to it.

 

[Lou]

Dr Melanie Joy writes about this, too.

 

[Danielle]

Was agreeing up until the cake at friends house, etc... I do think it is overly strict to worry about bone char and animal glue.
Being vegetarian does not mean having to eat a ton dairy and eggs.
"I eat mostly vegan" is the accurate way to put things, so maybe your goal is to be vegan but you have slip ups. It is hard to transition.

 

[KLS52]

I mostly agree. And it’s why I don’t use the vegan label anymore for myself l. People who know and love me already get it. But as I’m meeting new friends and acquaintances since moving to a new state, I do not identify as 100% vegan. I let them know that I strive for 100% but occasionally make exceptions. I still don’t want to give off the idea that true vegans can “flex” when it suits them. But that’s just me and how I feel about it.

What I will not do is identify as a vegetarian because I do not eat eggs or dairy freely as vegetarians do. I am way closer to vegan than vegetarian. Again, this is personal to how I feel about it. So mostly vegan suits me. Where I blur the line is when I’m eating out…I am going to eat the veggie burger regardless if it’s vegan or not, and I do not worry about the bread/roll. I absolutely will not “eat the cake, have the ice cream, eat the pasta.” Well, possibly the pasta if there is literally no other option. I always check out a menu before I eat out anyway and go prepared. So unless you’re really caught off guard I wouldn’t flex for convenience/desire sake. But I don’t expect everyone to follow that line of thinking. People have to set the rules for themselves. Just don’t give off the idea that you are 100% “vegan”. I don’t know…maybe that is harsh lol.

Covid really played a part in my having to give up being so strict. The inability to obtain certain products that always helped me stay on the vegan path was a big problem and still is to some degree. As someone who lives with two omnis and still feels deprived to an extent, after 16 years, it’s always been a struggle. Covid just made it that much harder. I do envy anyone who can hold to their beliefs/standards under any circumstances.

I probably strayed off the path and got too personal but I do think people should be encouraged to at least try and be as vegan as is possible for them. I have several friends who showed great interest in it and I always encouraged them as best I could. I never chastised if they were struggling, even if I felt like they were sometimes making excuses. It’s not easy for everyone. We need to at least acknowledge that and be supportive, not judgmental.

I really like and am comfortable with the mostly vegan term.

 

[Emma JC]

I am pretty strict and that said I don't have a lot of interactions with others as we don't visit a lot with anyone.

I have found that it is a good opportunity for a conversation if you are open about your preferences.

The key, I think, is not to freak out if you do eat something that isn't completely vegan. I find it helpful to not allow myself to stray and I don't get upset if my honey wishes to eat 'something' that he normally wouldn't.

The more we can convince others to cut back, or choose differently most of the time, is a good thing and whether they choose it for the animals, for their health or for the environment may determine how strict they are for themselves. Judge not....

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com

 

[Lou]

I mostly agree. And it’s why I don’t use the vegan label anymore for myself ing to a new state, I do not identify a

I really like and am comfortable with the mostly vegan term.

I thought about using the mostly vegan, or almost vegan label myself. But after thinking on it for a while I decided not to. (I may have over-analyzed it - something I sometime do. )

My thinking involves the The Vegan Society definition of Veganism. There ARE other definitions and who is to say which is the best. But I don't think it can be argued that The Vegan Society's definition is not a good one. There are also definitions for "dietary vegans". But IMHO, dietary vegans are just strict vegetarians and should just call themselves that.

The Vegan's society for an (ethical) vegan 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”

First off lets take a look at "possible and practicable". Who decides what is possible and practicable. That must be up to the individual. What is P&P for a guy living in a dorm, is not the same as the girls working in a restaurant to put themselves thru college. And its also different from the millionaire who has a chef, and that is different from the pregnant mom with 2 girls shopping in a mall.

The next words I want to spotlight is "seeks to exclude". They could have just said "excludes" but they added the "seeks to". IMHO they did that to avoid the requirement of perfection. Seeks to also implies intent. I also like the synonym "strives". So basically if you really "want to" be vegan - you are one.

I'm not watering down the meaning. its right there in the definition.

So fellow vegans, you don't need to stop calling yourself vegan and start saying, "I'm mostly vegan." You are just "vegan".

 

[Lou]

I may have un-earthed an issue. What about vegan food. Can food be vegan? It has no intent. Food can't decide what is P&P. But maybe the Vegan Society can decide for the food. Or maybe we just assume that food labeled Vegan is just suitable for vegans. I think in some countries food can get certified as vegan by a number of organizations. I'm pretty sure here in the US there is no legal (like USDA or FDA) verification process like there is for Organic.

But I digress.

 

[Lou]

On the flip side of this discussion is making veganism "too strict".
I call these people fussy vegans.

Although being (or not being) a fussy vegan is a personal choice and we need to leave the decision to the individual about how fussy they want to be, I think fussy vegans are ultimately bad for the animals.

I've come to that opinion by reading articles that discuss this. I've posted some of those here at the VF before.
But my main points is that if peoples exposure to veganism is thru fussy vegans they are probably going to come away with the idea that being vegan is very hard. Maybe even impossible if they haven't heard about P&P.

Recently I discussed the cross-contamination issue (see PETA Urges Vegans Not to Demand Separate Cooking Equipment)
Cross contamination doesn't hurt animals and it really can't affect the health of vegans.

 

[PTree15]

...First off lets take a look at "possible and practicable". Who decides what is possible and practicable. That must be up to the individual. What is P&P for a guy living in a dorm, is not the same as the girls working in a restaurant to put themselves thru college. And its also different from the millionaire who has a chef, and that is different from the pregnant mom with 2 girls shopping in a mall.

The next words I want to spotlight is "seeks to exclude". They could have just said "excludes" but they added the "seeks to". IMHO they did that to avoid the requirement of perfection. Seeks to also implies intent. I also like the synonym "strives". So basically if you really "want to" be vegan - you are one.

I'm not watering down the meaning. its right there in the definition.

So fellow vegans, you don't need to stop calling yourself vegan and start saying, "I'm mostly vegan." You are just "vegan".

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think it just confuses people about what vegans do and don't eat by saying that just because you want to be a vegan makes you one. Intent is great, but it doesn't translate to actually being a vegan if you're still eating eggs or cheese. I have one friend who jokingly calls himself a wannabe vegan because he can't shake the cheese addiction.

I do agree that "possible and practicable" is different for everyone, be it in outlook or actual circumstances, like not being able to get foods or staples typically found in a vegan kitchen or vegan toiletries and cleaning products for whatever reason, maybe because of finances or availability. Someone on a previous message board once said that veganism is a journey, not a destination. And I do agree with that. But I still think there are lines that define vegan vs. non-vegan.

As for Jamie's post, I agree with not worrying about the glue in cars or electronics, but I disagree when it comes to restaurants and friend's houses, etc. It's a personal thing, but if you want to call yourself a vegan, you have to do the work, as difficult as it may seem.

It was overwhelming at first trying to read labels and learn about the various animal-derived ingredients that are sneaked into seemingly veg*n foods. But it got easier the more I did it and learned. And I wasn't perfect; I made plenty of mistakes along the way. But that's how you learn.

I do choose not to eat the non-vegan veggie burger or bread when I'm out. I will ask about the ingredients if the restaurant isn't busy and I haven't had a chance to find out ahead of time. Otherwise, I'll choose another option that I'm 99 percent sure doesn't contain animal products. I love dining out, but what I love most is the company and the conversation. I feel like I can sacrifice on the food side if the rest of the occasion is enjoyable. Everyone has a different comfort level in this regard as well, especially when it comes to asking about ingredients. I know it may put off some people I dine with, but by now, most of them are used to me and my questions. As I said, I gauge it. If the restaurant is super busy, I'll just find another option. Also, I carry protein bars or a small bag of nuts with me in case my meal wasn't filling enough. Planning helps, especially if it's a spur-of-the-moment decision to grab something to eat while you're out with friends or family.

As far as friends' houses, a lot of them stopped inviting me to dinner (even before the pandemic) because I won't eat non-vegan food in that situation. And I'm OK with that even if my friends aren't. I get it if they aren't willing to accommodate my choices, especially when they don't share my views. Other friends have no problem going meatless and cheeseless for a night. Some of them even look at it as a chance to try something different. We can get together in other ways.

I do have one friend in another state who laments over what we both can eat when I visit for a weekend. She doesn't eat a lot of things I eat, such as beans, tofu, pasta and other starches. She basically eats dead flesh and vegetables. So a lot of meals that I think would work for both of us don't cut it for her. So I always suggest going out for the big meal, which takes the pressure off. But since COVID, we haven't visited overnight because she and her husband aren't vaccinated.

I think a lot of the struggles people have with trying veganism have to do with mindset. They tend to look at the negative, as in what they can't eat, rather than looking at it through the lens of hey, I get to try all this new stuff. I made it an adventure when I went from vegetarian to vegan. Also, it doesn't happen overnight for a lot of people. It took me years to ditch the cheese. It didn't bother me that I couldn't call myself a vegan. I guess people need to stop getting hung up on labels? I don't know.

All that said, I wholeheartedly applaud any reduction in the consumption of anything derived from animal products.

 

[PTree15]

On the flip side of this discussion is making veganism "too strict".
I call these people fussy vegans.

Although being (or not being) a fussy vegan is a personal choice and we need to leave the decision to the individual about how fussy they want to be, I think fussy vegans are ultimately bad for the animals.

I've come to that opinion by reading articles that discuss this. I've posted some of those here at the VF before.
But my main points is that if peoples exposure to veganism is thru fussy vegans they are probably going to come away with the idea that being vegan is very hard. Maybe even impossible if they haven't heard about P&P.

Recently I discussed the cross-contamination issue (see PETA Urges Vegans Not to Demand Separate Cooking Equipment)
Cross contamination doesn't hurt animals and it really can't affect the health of vegans.

I guess what's considered a "fussy vegan" is relative. I don't think it's being fussy to not want meat juices/flavor in your non-animal nuggets, but that's just me.

While I won't openly "demand" separate cooking equipment in front of my non-veg*n friends, I just won't bother trying their nuggets. Companies like KFC (a wretched company, IMHO) aren't interested in vegans anyway; they want to get to people who maybe just want to cut back on their meat consumption. Meanwhile, I've gone to Gobi Mongolian Grill, which will put out metal separators to keep non-vegan ingredients away from my veggie-based meal when I ask, and that is very much appreciated.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

if you want to call yourself a vegan, you have to do the work, as difficult as it may seem.

It was overwhelming at first trying to read labels

As far as friends' houses, a lot of them stopped inviting me to dinner

Editing your post to highlight a few quotes.

You should definitely continue to do what you are comfortable, and in some ways your efforts are kind of a little heroic and inspiring, but the question is whether we should advocate for others to do the same. Looking at these quotes, doesn't this attitude make veganism less attractive to outsiders, meaning less people will do it, and there will be more animal suffering?

I think half of us having to struggle how to define ourselves is not helpful. A broader interpretation of the vegan definition might help unify us all.

Mostly vegan sort of works, but then again mostly vegan could mean anywhere from "I eat the bread once a year on Christmas at my gran's house so as not to have a big argument on Christmas again" right through to "I eat steak every Sunday". So because the definition of veganism is policed somewhat strictly, you end up needing maybe two slightly awkward sentences every time if you want people to have a clear idea of what you are doing.

I worry that the people who don't think they are vegan because of the strictness therefore don't participate in the vegan forum, the vegan facebook page, the local vegan society etc etc. I want 30% of people to be vegetarian or vegan (that is my predicted threshold for the end of factory farming), not 1% of people trying to attain a high level of personal purity.

There was someone on the forum once (or Veggie Views which merged into this one) some years ago that explained that they eat a vegetarian cheese pizza when at a restaurant to make their lifestyle more attractive to their friends. There were some debates about this, and after a while I think the person left. They might have been a good ally for instance.

 

[silva]

That doesn´t mean we should encourage people to just rush to the store and buy milk chocolate ice cream. It should still be slightly discouraged, but not forbidden. And especially not “that´s great, but you should call yourself plant-based instead of vegan” which is basically like saying “you can´t be in our club”. People want to belong to a group. If they don´t fit in with the vegans, they might end up somewhere else.

I mostly agree, but here is where I do take issue. I do feel there needs to be a distinction between "plant based" and "vegan". I can be lenient about what people use or eat as vegans, but vegan should never be about diet.
And just what is this "club"? Like if I decide I want to eat Kosher, but have no desire to follow Judaism, I can say I'm Jewish?
I personally find more judgement from those who eat plant based for health, call themselves vegan, yet have no ethical stance. They will criticize vegans for eating foods they deem unhealthy. If it's pointed out that they really follow a plant based diet if they don't have issues with animal exploitation you get jumped on for 'policing', or 'vegan is some kind of club". It's not a club, it's living your beliefs. It feels more the other way around when health eaters call you out for eating what they feel is unhealthy!
And where did this 'club' mentality come from? If someone gets called out for not being the Christian they claim to be, do they get to whine about not being allowed in the "club"? It's silly.
Beyonce got called out for calling herself vegan while wearing animal skins. There would have been nothing wrong with calling herself plant based

Veganism will always be first a mindset to me. Someone struggling with money, resources, anything that makes choices difficult, should be acknowledged as needed more leniency
There are times when making exceptions can be the right thing to do, even if it's just making an older loved one feel good if not eating they feel badly if you won't eat their cooking. There are times when it's ok to sway.

I feel 100% as what Kls52 wrote. I do call myself 'mostly vegan'. I could do better, but I do good where I'm at

 

[Jamie in Chile]

"I eat mostly vegan" is the accurate way to put things, so maybe your goal is to be vegan but you have slip ups. It is hard to transition.

I don't have a slip up whenever I eat the bread at a restaurant. That is not a slip up. It's just something I've decided not to worry about.

I am not in transition. I've thought about it and decided that this is as far as I'm willing to go.

Just because the environmentalist drove a diesel car to the protest, that doesn't mean they now need to be "mostly environmentalist".

Just because the policewoman got herself a speeding ticket and was herself policed, she isn't now "mostly police".

There is a whole podcast called "guilty feminist" where they talk about all the non feminist things they do (it's quite funny). It's often because they all live in what is to some slight extent still a patriarchal men's world where sometimes the easy choice isn't the feminist one - sound familiar vegans?. They use the podcast to first discuss when they failed and then use that to unite and reaffirm the strength of their feminism. None of them say "ah, understand you are transitioning to feminsm, you should say "mostly feminist".

You don't see this level of strictness being applied anywhere else.

 

[silva]

Editing your post to highlight a few quotes.

You should definitely continue to do what you are comfortable, and in some ways your efforts are kind of a little heroic and inspiring, but the question is whether we should advocate for others to do the same. Looking at these quotes, doesn't this attitude make veganism less attractive to outsiders, meaning less people will do it, and there will be more animal suffering?

I think half of us having to struggle how to define ourselves is not helpful. A broader interpretation of the vegan definition might help unify us all.

I disagree. It's only hard because our culture is so immersed in animal use. Once you break free it isn't that difficult, although it is harder for some more than others, and yes, I think that should be taken into consideration. If we dilute the goals of veganism it will continue to be a struggle, because there will never be reason to change anything!

Mostly vegan sort of works, but then again mostly vegan could mean anywhere from "I eat the bread once a year on Christmas at my gran's house so as not to have a big argument on Christmas again" right through to "I eat steak every Sunday". So because the definition of veganism is policed somewhat strictly, you end up needing maybe two slightly awkward sentences every time if you want people to have a clear idea of what you are doing.

How is mostly vegan any different from what you're advocating 'vegan' should be? When it comes up I'm clear that there are times I'll make exceptions for some ingredients, and I still take lanolin based D3. I would bristle if anyone says vegan and eats meat! It isn't hard!

I worry that the people who don't think they are vegan because of the strictness therefore don't participate in the vegan forum, the vegan facebook page, the local vegan society etc etc. I want 30% of people to be vegetarian or vegan (that is my predicted threshold for the end of factory farming), not 1% of people trying to attain a high level of personal purity.

There was someone on the forum once (or Veggie Views which merged into this one) some years ago that explained that they eat a vegetarian cheese pizza when at a restaurant to make their lifestyle more attractive to their friends. There were some debates about this, and after a while I think the person left. They might have been a good ally for instance.

that's an individual problem! Not a general problem! There are many here that are clear we aren't that strict, and many who are vegetarian.
Here we go again with the 'club' mentality! It's okay to say 'plant based', it's ok to say vegetarian, or mostly....it's ok to say flexitarian even, even though no one agrees on what that means....
Instead of diluting the only term used to mean ethically oriented against animal exploitation, why not just be ok with what you really are? How about just be honest rather than insist people see you as something else? It is silly

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I mostly agree, but here is where I do take issue. I do feel there needs to be a distinction between "plant based" and "vegan". I can be lenient about what people use or eat as vegans, but vegan should never be about diet.
And just what is this "club"?

EDIT: Replied to a previous post, haven't read your latest one.

I think if the distinction is made based on people that have no ethical approach and are only doing it for health, that makes sense. If you are plant based for health/nutrition, presumably you buy any non-vegan clothes or toiletries, so it's reasonable to say you are not vegan.

What I'm talking about is not making the plant based/vegan distinction based on strictness. If you are someone who as I said at the start never consumes meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, leather, wool and fur and always has only vegan toiletries at home and not go to the zoo then I think saying "you are plant based" (after say finding out say that the person eats their favourite doughnut at the mall and uses the free shampoo at the hotel) is counterproductive and splinters a movement of like minded people, making it less attractive.

The club is the vegan facebook group, the local vegan meetup, the club is veganforum.org

Saying "you should call yourself plant based" is a bit like telling someone they don't belong. They may leave these "clubs" and that may weaken the wider movement. Of course, this is speculation. I can't prove it and it may not be true.

Telling people they can't call themselves vegan and use the free shampoo at the hotel, and they must buy the £3.75 version of that product because the £2.20 version of it has not been certified vegan by the vegan society is not going to make veganism grow in my view. A lot of people are really counting the pennies right now, or always, and some people just like processed foods so they are just never going to go for lentils and peaches.

 

[silva]

EDIT: Replied to a previous post, haven't read your latest one.

I think if the distinction is made based on people that have no ethical approach and are only doing it for health, that makes sense. If you are plant based for health/nutrition, presumably you buy any non-vegan clothes or toiletries, so it's reasonable to say you are not vegan.

What I'm talking about is not making the plant based/vegan distinction based on strictness. If you are someone who as I said at the start never consumes meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, leather, wool and fur and always has only vegan toiletries at home and not go to the zoo then I think saying "you are plant based" (after say finding out say that the person eats their favourite doughnut at the mall and uses the free shampoo at the hotel) is counterproductive and splinters a movement of like minded people, making it less attractive.

The club is the vegan facebook group, the local vegan meetup, the club is veganforum.org

Saying "you should call yourself plant based" is a bit like telling someone they don't belong. They may leave these "clubs" and that may weaken the wider movement. Of course, this is speculation. I can't prove it and it may not be true.

Telling people they can't call themselves vegan and use the free shampoo at the hotel, and they must buy the £3.75 version of that product because the £2.20 version of it has not been certified vegan by the vegan society is not going to make veganism grow in my view. A lot of people are really counting the pennies right now, or always, and some people just like processed foods so they are just never going to go for lentils and peaches.

Well, I do agree.
I still worry about the extending what we are willing to call vegan
Vegans asked to be ok with KFC advertising plant based foods cooked in chicken oil (though they do not say it's veg!) bothers me. It is both possible AND practical to use separate oil for non animal foods-esp since they serve fries!
It isn't the purity I take issue with, it's the taste. I would bet it has a short run! I could be wrong of course, but that's my feeling, and it will be seen that veg'ns aren't a good market, even though it was already doomed

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Hi Silva, I read your post 14 and 16 but can't think of anything additional of value to add to that in addition to what I've already said. We may have to agree to disagree on some aspects of the debate.

I do think a 100% vegan world (or as close as possible) should be the end goal. The question is to how to best get there.

 

[Danielle]

I don't have a slip up whenever I eat the bread at a restaurant. That is not a slip up. It's just something I've decided not to worry about.

I am not in transition. I've thought about it and decided that this is as far as I'm willing to go.

Just because the environmentalist drove a diesel car to the protest, that doesn't mean they now need to be "mostly environmentalist".

Just because the policewoman got herself a speeding ticket and was herself policed, she isn't now "mostly police".

There is a whole podcast called "guilty feminist" where they talk about all the non feminist things they do (it's quite funny). It's often because they all live in what is to some slight extent still a patriarchal men's world where sometimes the easy choice isn't the feminist one - sound familiar vegans?. They use the podcast to first discuss when they failed and then use that to unite and reaffirm the strength of their feminism. None of them say "ah, understand you are transitioning to feminsm, you should say "mostly feminist".

You don't see this level of strictness being applied anywhere else.

Then why do you need to call yourself vegan?
Let's not confuse people and have them think vegans eat milk and eggs whenever they get the urge, eating mostly vegan is way more accurate..
Let's not bend the definition because most can't or won't stick to it yet for some reason want to be called something they're not.

 

[silva]

Bottom line is that you can't please everyone.
How does it feel when someone comes here, affirms they are vegan, and eats eggs because the hens have a good life.
Are they to be seen as vegan, and not questioned? If someone brings up that eggs are not vegan and they go off in a huff, insisting that they are in fact vegan, as they see fit?
If they exit, are we to feel bad for not making them feel part of our 'club'?

It's like removing try outs for sports teams just to make more kids feel special, regardless of whether or not they're even willing to better themselves!

How about how that makes people who do put effort into veganism feel?
The more we bow to minimal standards, the less success we'll have in any real change.
If it's okay for vegans to eat carmine, egg and dairy, honey, gelatine, even direct contamination with animal parts, than what's the point of leaving them out? That only widens the market for cool omni stuff to make themselves feel better without bothering to change

What I'm trying to say, is that if someone is vegan but lenient about it, I don't feel it's right to demand that everyone else be ok with it-like just shut up and realize it wasn't vegan, you could have done better, and quit trying to demand people bow to you just so you can get a pass and do what you want!

 

[silva]

I don't have a slip up whenever I eat the bread at a restaurant. That is not a slip up. It's just something I've decided not to worry about.

I am not in transition. I've thought about it and decided that this is as far as I'm willing to go.

Just because the environmentalist drove a diesel car to the protest, that doesn't mean they now need to be "mostly environmentalist".

Just because the policewoman got herself a speeding ticket and was herself policed, she isn't now "mostly police".

There is a whole podcast called "guilty feminist" where they talk about all the non feminist things they do (it's quite funny). It's often because they all live in what is to some slight extent still a patriarchal men's world where sometimes the easy choice isn't the feminist one - sound familiar vegans?. They use the podcast to first discuss when they failed and then use that to unite and reaffirm the strength of their feminism. None of them say "ah, understand you are transitioning to feminsm, you should say "mostly feminist".

You don't see this level of strictness being applied anywhere else.

Yes you do--in most every facebook group, certainly the WFPB ones!
I belong to the Dr Greger group because I fully appreciate what the commitment people make to that way of eating does for health. I am NOT wfpb, and frequently eat processed foods, use sugar salt and oil. I would never dream to post that there because I know, and agree, it is against their rules. I would certainly never post I ate xxxx and demand that I should still be looked at as having a wfpb diet!
That level of strictness is found in many places. Would someone who takes a daily walk insist they're an athlete? Would a karaoke singer feel shunned if they weren't included in a choir?
I just don't understand peoples need to demand that things be changed just to suit how they want things to be

That's what I'm getting at-- I do feel veganism needs standards. I don't feel people should be judged for deviating based on time and need, but I DO feel they should acknowledge that the infractions are in fact deviations, not vegan standards just to suit what they like