What the eff is a veg*n? Adults spell out their political views and so can animal advocates

I still remember, not so fondly, the first time I ever heard the word 'veg*n' pronounced out loud by someone. It was years ago, and only now has the trauma subsided sufficiently that I can blog about it. I was on a noisy, but relaxed, patio of a local cafe, drinking an espresso. I had been vegan for a few years already and yet, the term was still new to me. It was with a friend of a friend. He was just finishing some lengthy and self-indulgent soliloquy about how seriously he took animal rights when he then proceeded to pour milk (not the good soy, nut, rice, oat, hemp, quinoa or potato kind but the dairy alternative) into his coffee. I thought he might actually tear up a little toward the end, and I was grateful that he didn't.

I said: �Are you really going to drink that?�
�Yes,� said he.
�But I thought you believed in animal rights?�
�I do, but I'm just a veg*n, not vegan.�

I was bewildered. Our mutual friend looked shocked, then anxious. To be clear, I had absolutely no intention of flipping the table. Even now, I write this blog entry not out of a sense of mean-spiritedness, but comradely warmth, as well as a glowing love for the English language and its proper use. It was not only ethically wrong (cows have a right not to be used as property), it was a crime against coffee.

At first, I wasn't sure what I had heard. Maybe he'd sneezed half way through saying �I'm just a clued-out vegetarian, not a vegan.� His voiced lilted upward on �veg*n� in the way that tone lilts upwards to denote disbelief or uncertainty, like: �I'm deeply confused?� I rifled through the lengthy list of political parties and other organizations I try to keep intellectually handy so that when I take the trouble to chide someone's reactionary political views, it will be in terms they'll most be able to appreciate. In the end, I do my best to accommodate others.

But veg*n meant nothing with which I was then familiar. Nothing. As a child, I was hooked on phonics, and when I'm in doubt, I go back to that. I sounded it out. VEJ....UN. Nothing. And then it hit me. He had said the word �veg*n� out loud. Till then I had only seen it in writing, and honestly, I could have lived my whole life that way. But because I'm a silver lining, big tent kind of guy, I took a moment to look on the bright side. At least he wasn't drinking milk and calling himself a vegan.

But the experience took me back to the first time I had ever seen the term veg*n in writing. At the time, I thought, �what the eff is a veg*n?� Between us, in the interests of full-disclosure, I didn't actually think �eff�. But for those more fortunate than I am, veg*n is a catch all term used to apply to the vegetarian and vegan communities as though they were one and the same.

I understand that some people transition into veganism (and I am absolutely in favor of anyone taking the rights of animals not to be used as property seriously and going vegan). I understand that in at least some very few cases, there is a shared, strictly plant-based diets. Nevertheless, the idea that people who still actively and sincerely contribute to animal slavery unapologetically by pounding back non-soy lattes, omelettes and cheese pizzas are in the same moral community as people who do not because they fundamentally oppose that slavery strikes me as odd. Odd here functions as a synonym for unnecessarily confusing to the point of being morally and intellectually negligent. I'm sure a good deal of the animal advocacy movement will probably be offended by my willingness to comment on the emperor's outfit. No offense, but placating your ego integrity is not as important to me as paying what I owe nonhuman animals and encouraging you to do the same.

Where am I going with this? you might ask. Well, a desire for sanity, clarity and a general respect for the English language compelled me to pen this post: a plea for people to stop using the term veg*n altogether. Why? I'm only too happy to tell you.

First, "veg*n" erases "vegan". It's not accidental, it's a strategy. It's intended to keep a public no more familiar with veganism than with Zoroastrianism unfamiliar with the prospect that all animals have a right not to be used as property and that veganism is the lived daily practice of taking those rights seriously. Most people understand what 'vegetarian' refers to (except, of course, for all the dictionary-challenged folks who believe it includes fish and fowl). Most people have no problems writing it out. Most people don't know what vegan is. Writing veg*n is a way to avoid having to write vegan for those who don't want to be reminded or to remind others that vegans take animals seriously, and vegetarians either do not, or do not understand why vegetarianism is meaningless to nonhuman animals.

Second, veg*n collapses two completely incompatible ideas together as though they were the same or closely related. They're not. The Queen of England and I both like an occassional glass of wine. When can I move into Buckingham Palace? People who use animals because they or their by-products taste good, look good, or make them laugh contribute wilfully to animal exploitation and suffering. Vegans don't use animals and avoid actions that cause animal exploitation and suffering insofar as it's practical and possible to do so; at the very least, they don't eat animal products. As a term, veg*n would be like creating a term fem*n to describe a group that included noted non-feminists like Jerry Fallwell as well as noted feminists like Gloria Steinem, bell hooks and Gayle Rubin. If that sounds totally preposterous, probably because it is.

Third, veg*n is just an assault on clarity. What is a veg*n? What will they accept and what will they not accept? If there are two different words in the English language, it's probably for a good reason. Veg*n may make vegetarians feel good, but it confuses restaurants, bars, pubs, bakeries, clothiers, mothers, father, sisters, brothers, grandmothers, aunts and uncles, among many others, when one veg*n says �I'll have my eggs over easy and my coffee with cream thanks for asking!� and another veg*n says �No, I don't want butter, honey or eggs with my toast,.you amoral cad!� Confusing everyone from the start really isn't best way to make progress for nonhuman animals.

Finally, veg*n is just a bad idea and it reflects a lack of respect for ideas. It promotes a kind of cultural illiteracy, as if it were simply too much work for anyone to remember two different, easily distinguished worlds that represent relatively simple to remember, but very different, concepts. If you're not sure why cute but dumb ideas are bad for veganism and bad for nonhuman animals, check out my previous blog entry. It should clarifies things.

I realize that using vegetarian and vegan separately and properly may take 2 extra seconds to type , but for nonhuman animals, basic clarity and all that is decent. I hope people will make the effort. Nonhuman animals depends on veganism and vegans to help lift them out of slavery. It's a shame when their self-appointed advocates can't even bring themselves to use firmly, clearly and unashamedly the only words in the English language that signify an opposition to nonhuman animal slavery.