Editing Speciesism (section)

==History==

=== Preceding ideas ===

==== Early perspectives on animal sensation and kinship ====
[[Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon|Buffon]], a French naturalist, writing in ''[[Histoire Naturelle]]'', published in 1753, questioned whether it could be doubted that animals "whose organization is similar to ours, must experience similar sensations", and that "those sensations must be proportioned to the activity and perfection of their senses".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Buffon |first=Georges Louis Leclerc |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4HhGAQAAMAAJ |title=Natural History: Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Minerals, &c. &c. &c |publisher=H. D. Symonds |year=1807 |location=London |pages=120 |language=en}}</ref> Despite these assertions, he insisted that there exists a gap between humans and other animals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Caponi |first=Gustavo |date=2016-12-08 |title=La discontinuidad entre lo humano y lo animal en la Historia natural de Buffon |trans-title=The discontinuity between humans and animals in Buffon's Natural history |journal=História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos |language=es |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=59–74 |doi=10.1590/s0104-59702016005000030 |pmid=27982279 |issn=1678-4758 |doi-access=free}}</ref> In the poem "[[Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne]]", [[Voltaire]] described a kinship between all sentient beings, humans and animals alike, stating: "All sentient things, born by the same stern law, / Suffer like me, and like me also die."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Voltaire |url=https://archive.org/details/tolerationother00volt |title=Toleration and Other Essays |publisher=G.P. Putnam's sons |year=1912 |editor-last=MacCabe |editor-first=Joseph |location=New York; London |page=[[iarchive:tolerationother00volt/page/258/mode/1up|258]]}}</ref>

==== Jeremy Bentham ====
[[Jeremy Bentham]] was the first Western philosopher to advocate for animals' [[Equal consideration of interests|equal consideration]] within a comprehensive, secular moral framework.<ref name=":0" /> He argued that species membership is morally irrelevant and that any being capable of suffering has [[Intrinsic value (ethics)|intrinsic value]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Sebo |first=Jeff |author-link=Jeff Sebo |url=https://utilitarianism.net/textbook/ |title=Introduction to Utilitarianism |year=2023 |editor-last=Chappell |editor-first=Richard Yetter |chapter=Utilitarianism and Nonhuman Animals |editor-last2=Meissner |editor-first2=Darius |editor-last3=MacAskill |editor-first3=William |editor-link3=William MacAskill |chapter-url=https://utilitarianism.net/guest-essays/utilitarianism-and-nonhuman-animals/}}</ref> In his 1789 book, ''[[An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation]]'', he wrote:<ref name=":1" /><blockquote>The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withheld from them but by the hand of tyranny.… [T]he question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?  </blockquote>Additionally, he was a strong proponent of animal welfare laws. However, he also accepted the killing and use of animals, provided that unnecessary cruelty was avoided.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Kniess |first=Johannes |date=2019-05-04 |title=Bentham on animal welfare |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09608788.2018.1524746 |journal=British Journal for the History of Philosophy |language=en |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=556–572 |doi=10.1080/09608788.2018.1524746 |issn=0960-8788}}</ref>

==== Lewis Gompertz ====
[[File:Portrait of Lewis Gompertz.png|thumb|[[Lewis Gompertz]] emphasized shared human-animal feelings, sensations, needs, and physiological characteristics.|243x243px]]
In his 1824 work ''[[Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes]]'', English writer and early animal rights advocate [[Lewis Gompertz]] argued for [[egalitarianism]], extending it to nonhuman animals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Horta |first=Oscar |date=2014-11-25 |title=Egalitarianism and Animals |url=https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol19/iss1/5 |journal=Between the Species |volume=19 |issue=1}}</ref> He stated that humans and animals have highly similar feelings and sensations, noting that experiences like hunger, desire, fear, and anger affect both in similar ways. Gompertz also pointed out shared physiological characteristics between humans and animals, suggesting a similarity in sensation.<ref name="Gompertz 1992">{{Cite book |last=Gompertz |first=Lewis |url=https://archive.org/details/moralinquiriesonthesituationofmanandofbrutes-lewisgompertz |title=Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes |publisher=Centaur Press |year=1992 |editor-last=Singer |editor-first=Peter |location=Fontwell |pages= |orig-year=1824}}</ref>{{Rp|41–42}} He criticized the use of animals by humans, highlighting the disregard for their feelings, needs, and desires.<ref name="Gompertz 1992" />{{Rp|27}}

==== Charles Darwin ====

English naturalist [[Charles Darwin]], writing in his notebook in 1838, asserted that man thinks of himself as a masterpiece produced by a deity, but that he thought it "truer to consider him created from animals."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rachels |first=James |date=1987 |editor-last=Sugden |editor-first=Sherwood J. B. |title=Darwin, Species, and Morality |url=https://academic.oup.com/monist/article-lookup/doi/10.5840/monist19877014 |journal=Monist |volume=70 |issue=1 |pages=98–113 |doi=10.5840/monist19877014 |issn=0026-9662}}</ref> In his 1871 book [[The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex|''The Descent of Man'']], Darwin argued:<ref>{{Cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |url=https://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-descent-of-man/ |title=The Descent of Man |publisher= |year=1874 |isbn= |edition=2nd |pages=[https://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-descent-of-man/ebook-page-45.asp 45], [https://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-descent-of-man/ebook-page-85.asp 85] |language=en}}</ref><blockquote>There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties&nbsp;... [t]he difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, etc., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals.</blockquote>

==== Arthur Schopenhauer ====
{{Main article|Arthur Schopenhauer's view on animal rights}}
German philosopher [[Arthur Schopenhauer]] asserted that [[anthropocentrism]] was a fundamental defect of [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], arguing that these religions have been a source of immense suffering for sentient beings because they separate man from the world of animals, leading to the treatment of animals as only things. Schopenhauer praised [[Brahmanism]] and [[Buddhism]] for their focus on kinship between humans and other animals, as well as their emphasis on the connection between them through [[metempsychosis]].<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Evans |first=E. P. |date=September 1894 |title=Ethical Relations Between Man and Beast |url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_45/September_1894/Ethical_Relations_Between_Man_and_Beast |magazine=Popular Science Monthly |volume=45 |access-date=2021-10-03}}</ref>

==== Secular and utilitarian animal advocacy ====
[[File:Henry Stephens Salt.jpg|thumb|292x292px|[[Henry S. Salt]] criticized the idea that there exists a "great gulf" between humans and other animals.]]

[[Secularist]]s in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, advocated for animals based their stance on [[Utilitarianism|utilitarian]] principles and evolutionary kinship, critiquing the Christian church's neglect of social justice and acceptance of suffering as divinely ordained. They sought a morality free from religious influence, initially supporting vivisection for human benefit but later questioning its necessity. Figures like [[G. W. Foote]] argued for broader utility, focusing on long-term moral principles rather than immediate gains. Embracing evolutionary theories, secularists highlighted the common origins and similarities between humans and animals, arguing that morality should extend to animals as they too experience pain and pleasure. They rejected the Christian theological gap between humans and animals, promoting scientific theories to support animal rights and welfare.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Li |first=Chien-Hui |date=March 2012 |title=An Unnatural Alliance? Political Radicalism and the Animal Defence Movement in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain |url=https://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/eu_file/133240337814.pdf |journal=EurAmerica: A Journal of European and American Studies |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=14–15 |via=Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica}}</ref>

English writer and animal rights advocate [[Henry S. Salt]], in his 1892 book ''[[Animals' Rights]],'' argued that for humans to do justice to other animals, they must look beyond the conception of a "great gulf" between them, claiming instead that we should recognize the "common bond of humanity that unites all living beings in one universal brotherhood".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Salt |first=Henry S. |url=http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt01.htm |title=Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress |publisher=Macmillan & Co. |year=1894 |location=New York |chapter=The Principle of Animals' Rights |access-date=2020-07-14}}</ref>

[[Edward Payson Evans]], an American scholar and animal rights advocate, criticized anthropocentric psychology and ethics in his 1897 work ''[[Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology]]''. He argued that these views wrongfully treat humans as fundamentally different from other sentient beings, disregarding any moral obligations towards them.<ref name="Evans 1898">{{Cite book |last=Evans |first=E. P. |url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924014058709 |title=Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology |publisher=D. Appleton & Company |year=1898 |location=New York |pages= |orig-year=1897}}</ref>{{Rp|83}} Evans believed that [[Darwin's theory of evolution]] implied moral duties not only towards enslaved humans but also towards nonhuman animals. He asserted that beyond kind treatment, animals need enforceable rights to protect them from cruelty.<ref name="Evans 1898" />{{Rp|14}} Evans contended that recognizing the kinship between humans and all sentient beings would make it impossible to mistreat them.<ref name="Evans 1898" />{{Rp|135}}

An 1898 article in ''[[The Zoophilist (magazine)|The Zoophilist]]'', titled "Anthropocentric Ethics", argued that early civilizations, before Christianity, viewed tenderness and mercy towards sentient beings as a law. It highlighted that [[Zarathustra]], [[Buddha]], and early Greek philosophers, who practiced [[vegetarianism]], espoused this philosophy. The article claimed that this understanding of human-animal kinship persisted into early Christianity but was challenged by figures like [[Origen]], who saw animals as mere [[Automaton|automata]] for human use. It concluded that the relationship between [[animal psychology]] and evolutionary ethics is gaining scientific and moral attention and can no longer be ignored.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=1898-10-01 |title=Anthropocentric Ethics |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3j0TAAAAYAAJ |journal=The Zoophilist |publisher=[[National Anti-Vivisection Society]] |volume=18 |issue=6 |pages=108}}</ref>

In 1895, American zoologist, philosopher, and animal rights advocate [[J. Howard Moore]] described [[vegetarianism]] as the ethical result of recognizing the evolutionary kinship of all creatures, aligning with Darwin's insights. He criticized the "pre-Darwinian delusion" that nonhuman animals were created for human use.<ref name="Moore 1895">{{Cite book |last=Moore |first=J. Howard |url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_a_Vegetarian |title=Why I Am a Vegetarian |year=1895 |pages=[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AWhyIamAVegetarian.pdf/21 19]–20}}</ref> In his 1899 book ''[[Better-World Philosophy]]'', Moore argued that human ethics were still anthropocentric, evolving to include various human groups but not animals. He proposed "zoocentricism" as the next stage, considering the entire sentient universe.<ref name="Moore 1899">{{Cite book |last=Moore |first=John Howard |url=https://archive.org/details/betterworldphilo00mooruoft |title=Better-World Philosophy: A Sociological Synthesis |publisher=The Ward Waugh Company |year=1899 |location=Chicago |pages=[https://archive.org/details/betterworldphilo00mooruoft/page/143/mode/1up 143]–144}}</ref> In his 1906 book ''[[The Universal Kinship]]'', Moore criticized the "provincialist" attitude leading to animal mistreatment, comparing it to denying ethical relations among human groups.<ref name="Moore 1906">{{Cite book |last=Moore |first=J. Howard |url=https://archive.org/details/universalkinship00moor |title=The Universal Kinship |publisher=Charles H. Kerr & Co. |year=1906 |location=Chicago |pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|276}} He condemned the human-centric perspective and urged consideration of victims' viewpoints,<ref name="Moore 1906" />{{Rp|304}} concluding that the [[Golden Rule]] should apply to all sentient beings, advocating equal ethical consideration for animals and humans:<ref name="Moore 1906" />{{Rp|327|quote=}} <blockquote>[D]o as you would be done by—and ''not'' to the dark man and the white woman alone, but to the sorrel horse and the gray squirrel as well; ''not'' to creatures of your own anatomy only, but to ''all'' creatures.</blockquote>

===Coining of the term===
[[File:Richard D Ryder in The Superior Human (2012).jpg|thumb|200px|[[Richard D. Ryder]] coined the term "speciesism" in 1970.]]
The term ''speciesism'', and the argument that it is a prejudice, first appeared in 1970 in a privately printed pamphlet written by British psychologist [[Richard D. Ryder]]. Ryder was a member of a group of academics in [[Oxford]], England, the nascent animal rights community, now known as the [[Oxford Group (animal rights)|Oxford Group]]. One of the group's activities was distributing pamphlets about areas of concern; the pamphlet titled "Speciesism" was written to protest against [[Animal testing|animal experimentation]].<ref name="Ryder 2000">{{Cite book |url=https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/animal-revolution-9781859733257/ |title=Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism |last=Ryder |first=Richard D. |publisher=Berg Publishers |year=2000 |isbn=9781859733257 |location=Oxford |language=en |oclc=870330772 |access-date=2019-11-08 |archive-date=2017-06-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625153328/http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/animal-revolution-9781859733257 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The term was intended by its proponents to create a rhetorical and categorical link to racism and sexism.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Oberg |first=Andrew |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/all-too-human-speciesism-racism-and-sexism/71147DF4646FC4F68601FB61C949E4E1 |title=All too human? Speciesism, racism, and sexism |journal=Think |issue=43 |pages=39–50 |doi=10.1017/S1477175616000051 |date=2016 |volume=15 |s2cid=170707744 |via=Cambridge University Press}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9833.00201 |title=Against "Humanism": Speciesism, Personhood, and Preference |first=Simon |last=Cushing |date=October 12, 2003 |journal=Journal of Social Philosophy |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=556–571 |via=Wiley Online Library |doi=10.1111/1467-9833.00201 |pmid=16619458}}</ref>

Ryder stated in the pamphlet that "[s]ince Darwin, scientists have agreed that there is no 'magical' essential difference between humans and other animals, biologically-speaking. Why then do we make an almost total distinction morally? If all organisms are on one physical continuum, then we should also be on the same moral continuum." He wrote that, at that time in the United Kingdom, 5,000,000 animals were being used each year in experiments, and that attempting to gain benefits for our own species through the mistreatment of others was "just 'speciesism' and as such it is a selfish emotional argument rather than a reasoned one".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ryder |first=Richard D. |date=Spring 2010 |title=Speciesism Again: the original leaflet |url=http://www.criticalsocietyjournal.org.uk/Archives_files/1.%20Speciesism%20Again.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Critical Society |issue=2 |pages=1–2 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121114004403/http://www.criticalsocietyjournal.org.uk/Archives_files/1.%20Speciesism%20Again.pdf |archive-date=14 November 2012}}</ref> Ryder used the term again in an essay, "Experiments on Animals", in ''[[Animals, Men and Morals]]'' (1971), a collection of essays on animal rights edited by philosophy graduate students Stanley and Roslind Godlovitch and John Harris, who were also members of the Oxford Group. Ryder wrote:

<blockquote>In as much as both "race" and "species" are vague terms used in the classification of living creatures according, largely, to physical appearance, an analogy can be made between them. Discrimination on grounds of race, although most universally condoned two centuries ago, is now widely condemned. Similarly, it may come to pass that enlightened minds may one day abhor "speciesism" as much as they now detest "racism." The illogicality in both forms of prejudice is of an identical sort. If it is accepted as morally wrong to deliberately inflict suffering upon innocent human creatures, then it is only logical to also regard it as wrong to inflict suffering on innocent individuals of other species.&nbsp;... The time has come to act upon this logic.<ref>Ryder (1971), p. 81</ref></blockquote>

===Spread of the idea===
[[File:Peter Singer MIT Veritas.jpg|thumb|200x200px|[[Peter Singer]] popularized the idea in ''[[Animal Liberation (book)|Animal Liberation]]'' (1975).]]
The term was popularized by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in his book ''[[Animal Liberation (book)|Animal Liberation]]'' (1975). Singer had known Ryder from his own time as a graduate philosophy student at Oxford.<ref>Diamond (2004), p. 93; Singer (1990), pp. 120–121</ref> He credited Ryder with having coined the term and used it in the title of his book's fifth chapter: "Man's Dominion ... ''a short history of speciesism''", defining it as "a prejudice or attitude of [[bias]] in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species":

<blockquote>Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favouring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case.{{sfn|Singer, 1990|pp=6,9}}</blockquote>

Singer stated from a [[Preference utilitarianism|preference-utilitarian]] perspective, writing that speciesism violates the principle of [[equal consideration of interests]], the idea based on [[Jeremy Bentham|Jeremy Bentham's]] principle: "each to count for one, and none for more than one." Singer stated that, although there may be differences between humans and nonhumans, they share the capacity to suffer, and we must give equal consideration to that suffering. Any position that allows similar cases to be treated in a dissimilar fashion fails to qualify as an acceptable moral theory. The term caught on; Singer wrote that it was an awkward word but that he could not think of a better one. It became an entry in the ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'' in 1985, defined as "discrimination against or exploitation of animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority."<ref name="Wise2004p26">Wise (2004), p. 26</ref> In 1994 the ''[[Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy]]'' offered a wider definition: "By analogy with racism and sexism, the improper stance of refusing respect to the lives, dignity, or needs of animals of other than the human species."<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy |last=Blackburn |first=Simon |date=1994 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780192116949 |location=Oxford; New York |pages=358 |language=en |oclc=30036693}}</ref>

=== Anti-speciesism movement<!--'Antispeciesism', 'Anti-speciesism', 'Antispeciesist', 'Anti-speciesist', 'Antispeciesists', and 'Anti-speciesists' redirect here--> ===
{{See also|Animal rights movement}}
{{Multiple image
| direction         = vertical
| width             = 200
| image1            = ANTI SPECISMO graffiti in Turin.jpg
| caption1          = Anti-speciesism graffiti in [[Turin]]
| image2            = JMFS 02.jpg
| caption2          = 2015 anti-speciesism protest in [[Montreal]]
}}
The French-language journal ''[[Cahiers antispécistes]]'' ("Antispeciesist notebooks") was founded in 1991, by [[David Olivier]], [[Yves Bonnardel]] and Françoise Blanchon, who were the first French activists to speak out against speciesism.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ruhlmann |first=P. |date=2018-02-12 |title=Voulons nous toujours tuer des animaux? |trans-title=Do we still want to kill animals? |url=http://desutopies.fr/voulons-nous-toujours-tuer-des-animaux/ |url-status=dead |access-date=2020-07-24 |website=Des utopies |language=fr-FR |archive-date=2021-04-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210427141725/http://desutopies.fr/voulons-nous-toujours-tuer-des-animaux/}}</ref> The aim of the journal was to disseminate '''anti-speciesist'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> ideas in France and to encourage debate on the topic of [[animal ethics]], specifically on the difference between animal liberation and [[ecology]].<ref>{{Cite interview |last=Olivier |first=David |interviewer=Françoise Duvivier |title=Cahiers Antispecistes Lyonnais: A French Magazine About the Animal's Liberation |url=http://www.damagedcorpse.com/interview/SensoriaFromCensorium.html |work=Sensoria from Sensorium |issue=2 |place=Canada |date=1993 |pages=186–190}}</ref> Estela Díaz and Oscar Horta assert that in Spanish-speaking countries, unlike English-speaking countries, anti-speciesism has become the dominant approach for animal advocacy.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Díaz |first1=Estela |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctvx1hw6p |title=Spanish Thinking about Animals |last2=Horta |first2=Oscar |publisher=Michigan State University Press |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-60917-637-2 |editor-last=Carretero-González |editor-first=Margarita |pages=167–184 |chapter=Defending Equality for Animals: The Antispeciesist Movement in Spain and the Spanish-Speaking World |doi=10.14321/j.ctvx1hw6p.17 |jstor=10.14321/j.ctvx1hw6p |s2cid=243130825}}</ref> In Italy, the contemporary anti-speciesist movement has two main approaches: one that takes a strong, radical stance against the dominant societal norms, and another that aligns more with mainstream, [[Neoliberalism|neoliberal]] views.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Losi |first1=Giorgio |date=2020 |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47507-9_4 |work=Animality in Contemporary Italian Philosophy |pages=71–93 |editor-last=Cimatti |editor-first=Felice |series=The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-47507-9_4 |isbn=978-3-030-47507-9 |access-date=2021-03-03 |last2=Bertuzzi |first2=Niccolò |title=What is Italian Antispeciesism? An Overview of Recent Tendencies in Animal Advocacy |hdl=11572/287771 |s2cid=226662072 |editor2-last=Salzani |editor2-first=Carlo |hdl-access=free}}</ref>

In the 21st century, animal rights groups such as the [[Farm Animal Rights Movement]] and [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] have attempted to popularize the concept by promoting a World Day Against Speciesism on 5 June.<ref name="PETA 2010">{{Cite web |date=4 June 2010 |title=World Day Against Speciesism |url=https://www.peta.org/blog/world-day-speciesism/ |access-date=8 November 2019 |website=PETA |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=5 June 2013 |title=World Day Against Speciesism |url=http://blog.farmusa.org/world-day-against-speciesism/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528011626/http://blog.farmusa.org/world-day-against-speciesism/ |archive-date=28 May 2015 |access-date=8 November 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Rao |first=Siddharth |title=Call to shun 'speciesism', love all animals |newspaper=Telangana Today |location=Hyderabad |pages= |language= |publisher=Telangana Publications |date=5 June 2021 |url=https://telanganatoday.com/call-to-shun-speciesism-love-all-animals |access-date=5 June 2021}}</ref> The [[World Day for the End of Speciesism]] (WoDES) is a similar annual observance held at the end of August.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2020-08-27 |title=Activists around the globe celebrate 'World Day for the End of Speciesism' |work=TCIJ |url=https://www.tcijthai.com/news/2020/8/english/10872 |access-date=2021-10-14}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Pendyala |first=Sweta |date=2018-08-27 |title=Hyderabadi vegans join hands to end speciesism |work=ETimes |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/hyderabad/hyderabadi-vegans-join-hands-to-end-speciesism/articleshow/65551456.cms |access-date=2021-10-14}}</ref> The WoDES has been held annually since 2015.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Previous editions |url=https://www.end-of-speciesism.org/en/previous-editions/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211030024642/https://www.end-of-speciesism.org/en/previous-editions/ |archive-date=October 30, 2021 |access-date=April 1, 2022 |website=World day for the end of speciesism |date=4 April 2018}}</ref>