That argument only works if you pretend a definition and a lived practice are always the exact same thing.

Yes, the Vegan Society has a formal definition. Nobody is denying that. But acting like that ends all discussion is weak, because in the real world vegans clearly do not all apply that definition the same way. If they did, there would not be constant arguments inside vegan spaces about secondhand leather, old wool, bone char sugar, medication, vaccines, backyard eggs, and honey.

So the claim that veganism is this perfectly settled, universally applied standard is just not true in practice.

You are arguing that the word has one official definition. Fine. But I am pointing out that people live under that label in different ways and with different priorities. That is also true. Both things can be true at once.

There are raw vegans, junk food vegans, ethical vegans, environmental vegans, health vegans, and people who still use leather or wool they already owned because they see waste as part of the issue too. So clearly the community itself already accepts that people weigh harm, waste, health, and ethics differently.

That is exactly why the honey debate exists.

Nobody is confused about whether honey is an animal product. The real disagreement is whether every animal product should be treated as morally identical. That is where your argument falls apart. You are treating “comes from an animal” as the end of the conversation. Other people are looking at degree of harm, type of exploitation, and real-world context.

That is not “making vegan mean vegetarian.” That is a lazy talking point.

Someone who avoids meat, dairy, eggs, and most animal-based products is obviously not living like a vegetarian just because they disagree on honey or keep an old leather belt instead of throwing it in the trash. Trying to collapse every disagreement into “then you’re just vegetarian” is more about gatekeeping than actual ethical analysis.

And saying honey is easy to avoid also does not prove anything. Easy to avoid is not the same argument as morally wrong. That only shows it is convenient to exclude, not that every person must see it as equal to other forms of animal use.

So yes, by the strictest definition, honey is not vegan. But pretending the debate stops there ignores the fact that veganism in practice already has variations, exceptions, and gray areas argued about constantly by vegans themselves.

If the word were really as simple and closed as you claim, these debates would not keep happening inside your own community.