The Unspoken Exclusion: Animal Rights & Intersectionality

Justice movements have long fought to dismantle systems of oppression. Feminist, anti-racist, LGBTQ+, anti-colonial, and disability rights activists have demanded recognition, respect, and rights for those marginalised by dominant power structures. Yet there remains a glaring, often wilfully ignored omission in these conversations: the rights of non-human animals. While many activists call for justice for "all," this call routinely excludes the billions of non-human individuals commodified, confined, and killed each year. Their absence from the broader family of justice movements is not accidental; it reflects a deep-rooted supremacist mindset in which the treatment of other animals is not only accepted but normalised and used as the very benchmark of domination.

1. Human Supremacy: The Root of Exclusion

At the core of the exclusion of animals from justice movements lies human supremacy: the belief that humans are inherently more valuable than all other species. This ideology mirrors white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, and other forms of hierarchical thinking. Human supremacy doesn't merely justify the use of animals; it makes their exploitation invisible. It establishes a world in which it is normal for cows to be forcibly impregnated, pigs to be mutilated without anaesthetic, and chickens to be confined by the thousands in dark sheds - all for fleeting human pleasure.

This supremacy isn't just about exploitation; it's about erasure. Non-human animals are so thoroughly commodified that we do not see them as individuals at all. They are reduced to units: kilograms of meat, litres of milk, dozens of eggs, metres of leather. They are denied their identities, families, preferences, fears, and desires. They are things, not persons.

2. The Benchmark of Oppression: "Being Treated Like an Animal"

The phrase "treated like an animal" is synonymous with degradation, humiliation, and suffering. To compare a human to an animal is to strip them of dignity, worth, and rights. This linguistic norm reveals a profound truth: the treatment of animals has become the baseline for what is unacceptable, even inhumane, treatment of humans.

We see this in the comparisons drawn between slavery and factory farming, between concentration camps and slaughterhouses, between cages used for political prisoners and cages used for hens. These comparisons are not meant to diminish human suffering but to illuminate the severity of non-human suffering and the social acceptance of it. Yet making such comparisons often provokes outrage, not because the parallels are invalid, but because they force us to confront the discomforting truth that we allow a level of violence towards animals that would be unthinkable if directed at humans.

To be treated like an animal is to be dismissed, ignored, and brutalised without consequence. This standard of oppression becomes a yardstick by which all other suffering is measured. And yet, rather than interrogate that standard, most justice movements simply accept it.

3. The Problem with Hierarchies of Suffering

One of the most persistent myths in justice discourse is that suffering must be prioritised. This myth insists that human struggles are too urgent to make space for non-human issues. But oppression is not a zero-sum game. Liberation is not a queue.

This mindset of prioritisation often masks a deeper discomfort: the refusal to acknowledge one’s own complicity. Many who rail against systemic injustice still participate daily in the systematic exploitation of animals through food, fashion, entertainment, and more. To accept animal rights as a legitimate justice issue is to confront one's own habits and privileges.

The belief that animal rights are a "distraction" or "less important" than human rights also assumes that the two are separate. They are not. The logic that justifies enslaving a cow because she cannot resist, or killing a pig because he is considered property, is the same logic that has been used to justify slavery, colonisation, and patriarchal control: might makes right.

4. The Commodification of Life: Animals as Products

Non-human animals are not merely oppressed; they are transformed. Their bodies are not just controlled but converted into products. They become sandwiches, handbags, cosmetics, entertainment, and experiments. Their very existence is redefined by human use.

This is the most extreme form of objectification: to be killed, dismembered, and sold in parts. To have your reproductive system used for profit. To be bred into existence for a single purpose, with no chance of freedom, autonomy, or even survival.

Injustice movements often speak about exploitation, coercion, bodily autonomy, and consent. Yet they overlook the billions of sentient beings who have no say in whether they are born, kept alive, or killed. Animals are denied even the most basic right to exist for their own sake. Their value is defined solely by how useful they are to humans.

5. Intersections Denied: The Failings of Inclusive Activism

Intersectionality, as coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, was meant to recognise the overlapping systems of oppression faced by individuals. Today, the term is often invoked as a buzzword, yet animals are rarely included in these intersections.

This is a glaring failure. The industries that exploit animals are often the same ones that exploit marginalised humans. Slaughterhouse work is disproportionately done by undocumented migrants, people of colour, and the economically disadvantaged. Communities near factory farms face polluted water, noxious air, and increased disease. Animal exploitation is inextricable from environmental racism and labour injustice.

Including animals in justice movements does not weaken the fight for human rights; it strengthens it. It makes our ethical stance consistent. It expands our circle of concern. Yet many refuse this expansion, clinging to the idea that speaking for animals somehow detracts from speaking for humans. In reality, the two are bound together.

6. Veganism as a Justice Movement

Too often, veganism is framed as a diet or lifestyle choice. But at its core, veganism is a political stance: a rejection of the idea that animals exist for human use. It is a commitment to the principle that beings should not be bred, used, and killed against their will.

When people ridicule or dismiss vegan advocacy as "militant" or "preachy," they are reacting not to tone but to content. They are uncomfortable being reminded that their comfort comes at the cost of another’s suffering. Just like those who once mocked abolitionists, suffragettes, or civil rights activists, they resist change by discrediting the messenger.

Veganism, as part of the animal justice movement, is not separate from human rights, it is a natural extension of it. It asks us to reject all forms of domination, to stop ranking lives by usefulness, species, or sentience. It calls for a world where no one is owned, bred, caged, or killed for someone else’s convenience.

7. The Fragility of Human Identity

Part of the resistance to animal rights lies in the fragility of human identity. Many fear that by granting moral consideration to non-human animals, we blur the lines between "us" and "them." This fear is rooted in a need to feel exceptional. To be human, we are taught, is to be above.

This exceptionalism allows humans to commit atrocities while feeling morally upright. It allows us to weep over a dog while eating a pig. To fight for reproductive rights while stealing calves from their mothers. To speak of justice while paying for slaughter.

But this identity is built on a lie. Humans are animals. Sentience does not begin or end with our species. Morality does not require opposable thumbs. And justice does not stop at the edge of humanity.

8. The Silence of the Mainstream

Mainstream justice organisations often avoid animal rights altogether. They fear controversy, backlash, or dilution of their "core message." But what is a justice movement if it refuses to acknowledge injustice?

Justice cannot be partial. It cannot be comfortable. And it certainly cannot be silent.

The exclusion of animal rights from mainstream justice movements is not neutral, it is a political decision that reinforces the status quo. It says: some lives matter more. It says: these beings are beneath consideration. It says: you can care about oppression, just not this one.

9. Toward a Truly Inclusive Justice Ethic

What would it mean to take animal rights seriously within justice movements?

It would mean acknowledging that supremacy is not limited to race, gender, or class, it extends to species. It would mean refusing to consume products of violence, no matter who the victim is. It would mean expanding our moral circle to include all sentient beings, not just the ones who look like us.

It would mean standing against commodification in all its forms, whether it’s a trafficked human body or a calf torn from her mother to produce dairy.

It would mean living by the principle that no one, human or non-human, should be used as a means to someone else’s end.

Animal rights have long been excluded from the wider family of justice movements, not because they are unworthy, but because their inclusion would require a radical rethinking of power, privilege, and identity.

To acknowledge the injustice done to animals is to confront the foundation of human supremacy. It is to question the sandwiches and shoes, the leather and milk, the cages and collars. It is to reject the idea that anyone exists for someone else’s gain.

Until justice movements include the voiceless, the powerless, the commodified billions slaughtered each year, they are incomplete. Real justice has no species limit.

Because if being treated like an animal means being used, ignored, or destroyed, then we must create a world where being treated like an animal means receiving the basic considerations we would all expect.