So, you lie about your own identity because you want to fit in with people who you fundamentally disagree with.
And this is okay because transgender people exist? Or because the version of abortion Catholics adopted in 1869 is being challenged?
Sorry bud, none of this makes sense. I suspect you've fallen in with a bad crowd, if any of this sounds reasonable to you.
I gave you some examples where "meaning" shifted so much, it no longer means anything.
> Catholics adopted in 1869
No, current position of the church is pretty clear. If I would go around harrasing some girl, telling her parents she had secret abortion... Pretty much the same situation I have with vegans!
> So, you lie about your own identity because you want to fit in with people
No, I do not lie. I am vegan, just not very strict one.
Some people from my group own (and exploit) animals. This is the same situation!
> who you fundamentally disagree with
I do not disagree with anyone. We are never going to have this sort of discussion.
No, you didn't.
If someone were to call themselves Catholic, but visit a synagogue every Saturday, would you expect them to get huffy when their church mates question their affiliation? Be real.
> No, I do not lie. I am vegan, just not very strict one.
There's a word for that diet, and it's not 'vegan'.
You know this, because you said yourself that you hide this from your vegan friends.
> Some people from my group own (and exploit) animals. This is the same situation!
Vegan doesn't mean 'can't own pets'. If you have friends who call themselves vegan but raise cows for beef, then guess what - they're not vegans either.
> I do not disagree with anyone.
Lol. You disagree with the entire world about what the word vegan means, and are trying to justify it with transphobic slurs.
I'm not the Vegan Police, and you're not a vegan. Your argument that people call themselves anything these days, so you can too, is fundamentally spurious.
Many people do that. You can be Jewish (by origin) but also Catholic (by faith). Nobody is going to throw you out, for not being religious enough! Not many people go to church nowadays, they are happy for every paying visitor.
I am an agnostic though, I do not care.
> and it's not 'vegan
Not everyone is going to live up to, your strict "1869" version of veganism. I am 85% vegan, and I like rounding up.
> Vegan doesn't mean 'can't own pets
Person can select an animal by laundry list of criteria (sex, breed, color, size, temperament, age...). Put into cage regularly whenever convenient. Keep it alone in tiny apartment for 12 hours. Even castrate it to make their life easier... And somehow it is equatiable relationship, with no exploitation!
I can respect your commitment to the bit, I guess. It's getting old though.
Here's your diet, in words the rest of the world uses (as has already been pointed out to you): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flexitarian
Call it what you like, I guess, and keep getting upset when people correct you if you insist. Seems like an awful strange hill to commit to, but you do you. Maybe lay off the transphobic shit though.
Anyway, here is "official definition" from wikipedia:
> Since 1988, The Vegan Society gives two definitions of veganism:
> Veganism 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 for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
> — The Vegan Society, Definition of veganism, https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
> The first definition by The Vegan Society is accepted among ethical and environmental vegans and the second definition by The Vegan Society is accepted among dietary vegans.[88]
So I am not "dietary vegan", I am "ethical" and "environmental vegan". I only agree with the first definition.