Fit, Macho, Sexy: The Redefinition of Vegan

Photo Credit: cizauskas via Compfight cc
Photo Credit: cizauskas via Compfight cc

The redefining of veganism is gaining momentum. Mainstream media is latching onto faux-vegans to push their particular agenda.

Lately it seems to be that veganism is a diet.

The current flavour of the month seems to be Matt and Phil Letten (vegan bros), and Tobias Leenart (Vegan Strategist).

The Guardian, in their recent article, claim that this new batch of vegans are reinventing it.

The reality of things is that they are redefining what veganism is.

The Vegan Bros

According to the vegan bros, veganism is nothing more than a diet that is void of some animal products.

They claim that everyone who disagrees with animal cruelty is already 90% vegan. All they have to do to get to 100% is change their diet.

They claim that honey is vegan, and justify that statement.

They have asked that if you are “vegan except for fish”, that you eat a cow instead.

Then there is the woeful justification for why isinglass is vegan, and I quote.

The vast majority of fish aren’t killed for fucking isinglass, they’re killed for people to eat. So if we stop eating fish but keep drinking beer, fish overall come out ahead.

So in other words, drinking beer processed with isinglass doesn’t kill animals. Vegans refusing to drink beer with isinglass kills animals.

I mean come on, seriously?

The Vegan Strategist

Why Emine Saner chose to quote Tobias is beyond me.

Posting under the misnomered title of “Vegan Strategist” Tobias Leenaert, formerly known as VeganSapioSexual, routinely presents gotchas disguised as thought experiments, where the only acceptable solution is to consume animal products.

In a similar way to the Vegan Bros, he considers wine that has used isinglass to be a ‘grey area’.

While claiming that he is vegan for animal rights, his view on the consumption of animal products depends on frequency and intent. At what frequency and intent would be enough for Tobias to say that someone is no longer vegan is anybody’s guess.


What really surprised me was that he was able to be caught out by another animal rights activist, considering that was the reason he went vegan in the first place.

Or, how about his “could be true, I don’t know” statement?

Let’s also not forget that he considers himself a professional, and the rest of us are mere civilians.

New Breed Of…

Both Tobias and the Letten brothers have redefined veganism to fit their own agenda, and improve their own popularity.

Yet, in doing so, they have missed the most important part of what veganism is all about.

Veganism is a social justice issue, not one of social acceptance.

This isn’t about moving the goal posts to fit more people in who make token changes.

This is about drawing a line in the sand and saying that it is no longer acceptable to use other animals for food, clothing, research, entertainment, and so on.

If the watering down wouldn’t be accepted in other social justice movements, why accept it for veganism?

Isn’t it time you drew a line in the sand?

1 thought on “Fit, Macho, Sexy: The Redefinition of Vegan”

  1. The Guardian was simply looking for a buzz-worthy headline and Tobias/Vegan Brothers offered a watered down version to appease the masses; the result, as you stated, is not positive for veganism. It would be the equivalent of supporting a lessening of the percentage of death penalty executions, but not abolishing the death penalty all-together. To play devils advocate, it may be a productive strategy to instigate change, however it does nothing to enlighten the ignorant.


What are your thoughts?