So for people with a lot of feasible options for being vegan to go around deeming all others many of whom don't have alternatives as murderers/inherently bad people/the problem is quite horrible behaviour that stems from such privilege blindness based on misconceptions that all people are equally capable of going vegan.
The definition of vegan includes possible and practical. Considering that some people in third world countries don't have the option is just normal veganism, not "intersectional veganism".
That's a myth. You can get vegan food in a "food desert". Canned beans, bread, and tortillas are VERY widely available across the South where food deserts are most common, as is peanut butter and orange juice.
Things like nuts and beans, and supplements, can also be ordered online at reasonable costs, and delivered to your door.
It's a matter of ignorance that people don't know how to eat vegan without a whole foods nearby.
It's harder to find green veggies, but that's an issue of optimal nutrition, and not of just being vegan. Achieving adequate nutrition with limited means is an education issue.
garrethdsouza wrote:Yet specific movements exist focusing on particular issues, similar to how separate subjects exist in schools.
This is excellent rhetoric, but it's not at all accurate.
When groups have competing interests, giving one group rights means taking away from the other. There's no clear outcome where "everybody wins" in most of these cases, particularly for Feminism and MRM.
garrethdsouza wrote:Noones saying identifying as one (eg lgbt activist, feminist) means you're opposed to the other (heterosexuality, men)
Most people aren't saying that because they don't understand feminism, or politics.
Feminism is inherently opposed to men's rights, which is both necessary and appropriate
. I don't criticize that fact, but celebrate it, because we need both perspectives, and we need an adversarial system (it's like in court, where there is a defense and prosecution, or a two party political system).
Due to biological differences, particularly with regard to child bearing, there is no such thing as equal rights on some of these topics.
garrethdsouza wrote:the constant blatant strawpersoning that the respective movements are majorly about the latter rather than the former is a very big part of the confusionism method.
I don't think you're deliberately trying to strawman anybody, but by misunderstanding the issue and explaining it incorrectly, you're inadvertently contributing to the confusionism.
Equality is great, but it's not always possible. You have to also consider what that means in practice.
Of course feminism is sexist -- it considers the interests of one sex above another. Of course it's against men's rights (particularly where they conflict with women's). And that's OK. That's how it's supposed to be. If it were otherwise, it would no longer be effective. Feminism is advocacy for women. MRM is advocacy for men. They meet somewhere in the middle on the field of the battle of ideas, and ultimately come to some kind of balance or compromise -- or that's how it should work.
It's counterproductive confusionist rhetoric to criticize the rights movement of a gender for being sexist, whether that's people criticizing feminism or MRM.
But the bottom line is that intersectionality on these issues is impossible without making veganism itself sexist, and that is NOT appropriate. Because Feminism and MRM can not intersect, Veganism can not take a side and can not intersect with either of them, or else it must inherently oppose the other, which would be wrong and not what veganism is about.
Veganism needs to stay neutral on these other battles, and just be what it is: about the ethics of consumption of products harmful to animals.