A growing number of publications about vegetarians and/or vegans (henceforth “veg*ns”) report the (very small) number of people who make gender choices other than the binary options (henceforth “gender-diverse”) but drop them from the analysis. This creates a gap in our knowledge about intersections of food and identity, which we aim to fill.
Our work brings small numbers of gender-diverse people into current research by carefully examining potential parallels and contrasts between the identity development of veg*ns and binary genders as minorities. To demonstrate our approach, we analyzed an existing survey in the 27 EU countries (Eurobarometer 79.1) and country-level data.
Percentages of both gender-diverse persons and veg*ns were higher in countries with higher national income and cultural values that allow individuals to choose their own paths. Focusing on the nine highest-income countries, we identified 7.1% (655) veg*ns and 0.2% (17) gender-diverse persons and we found that gender diversity and veg*nism were similarly related to age category, length of education, being a student, left–right political position and living in cities. Also, being a gender-diverse person and, in particular, being a vegan co-occurred more often than might be expected by chance.
The sheer consistency of the results leads to the tentative conclusion that our knowledge about veg*nism and gender is incomplete without considering the situation of small groups (e.g. gender-diverse persons) who might be frontrunners and allies in the pursuit of healthy and sustainable diets.
1. Introduction
Although much work has been done on the relationship between vegetarians or vegans (henceforth “veg*ns”) and gender (Rosenfeld, 2020; Ruby, 2012), there is a salient gap in our knowledge about this topic. A growing number of publications about veg*ns report the (very small) number of people among their subjects who do not feel they fit into the cultural categories of “women” and “men” (Mayrhofer et al., 2024; Judge et al., 2022; Dhont and Ioannidou, 2024; Gregson et al., 2024; Buttlar et al., 2024). This corresponds with the fact that, over the past decade, the public availability of information about this topic has changed through the internet and social media, allowing youths from diverse backgrounds to discover fluid, complex notions of gender, for example “queers” (Diamond, 2020). People who identify their gender with another option (also called “non-binary”) can be termed “gender-diverse people” in the academic literature (Thorne et al., 2019). However, scientific research that includes them explicitly is still in its infancy (Diekman and Schmader, 2024). The gender-diverse people mentioned in the above publications were all dropped from the analysis due to methodological concerns about the low statistical power of small sample sizes. This is understandable but unfortunate, because there is an increasing attention in the literature for the health and environmental benefits of vegetarian diets in high-income countries (Fresán and Sabaté, 2019) and the relationships between veg*nism and gender in its various forms (Rodrigues et al., 2020; Wright, 2021; Diewald et al., 2024; Peeters et al., 2022).
Our contribution explores whether we can improve understanding by combining theoretical insights about identity development and cultural minorities in social psychology, data about cultural differences at the country-level and data related to dietary identity and gender identity at individual level. The key is that “veg*n” and “gender-diverse” can be seen as identity categories that are socially marked and evaluated as distinct from conventional behavior, whereas being in the opposite categories is unmarked and socially taken for granted (Brekhus, 2008). This perspective allows us to focus on parallels and contrasts between distinctive diet- and gender-choices as both are related to one’s identity within social networks (Rosenfeld, 2019; McGuire et al., 2019), the cultural values to which one is exposed (Schwartz, 2014) and the dominant farm type in a country, which may be a trigger for veg*ns (Simons et al., 2021). This means for the empirical part of the study that data are required at the level of individuals and at the country level (used as a proxy for cultural characteristics). The paper is based on individual-level data from Eurobarometer 97.1, carried out in the 27 EU countries in Spring (2022). This is the only Eurobarometer survey that asks a question about the adoption of a veg*n diet. Although this topic is not mentioned in the report of the European Commission (2022), it can be found in the data file that is publicly available (European Commission, 2023a, b). The survey is complemented by country-level data that indicate cultural value differences and dominant farm type.
In technical terms, diet- and gender-choices are treated as two dependent variables; independent variables are the differences between countries in dominant farm type as well as in sociocultural values that stimulate individuals to choose their own paths, and identity related variables at individual level, such as age category, length of education, being a student, left–right political position and living in cities. We anticipate that the relationships between the dependent and the independent variables show many parallels between veg*ns and gender-diverse persons, except for dominant farm type, which may trigger veg*ns only. Finally, the relationship between the two dependent variables is examined.
In sum, the aims of the paper are (1) to identify how country-level variables are related to making distinctive choices about diet and gender, (2) to assess how those individuals who make distinctive choices about diet and gender are different from the others in terms of the identity-relevant variables and (3) to assess whether and under what conditions the identities of being a veg*n and of being a gender-diverse person co-occur. In the Discussion, we compare the percentages of gender-diverse persons among the vegans and the vegetarians of the present study with the percentages mentioned in the literature that was cited in the beginning of this Introduction.
The next sections provide some background information on the main topics. These include the parallels in identity development between veg*ns and gender-diverse persons and the impacts of dominant farm type and cultural values, which may or may not allow individuals to choose their own paths. The final section more specifically introduces the present study and its research strategy.
2. Literature review
2.1 Parallels in identity development
Veg*ns and gender-diverse persons belong to socially marked categories that each have their own history (Vincent and Manzano, 2017; Spencer, 1996), which highlights how they were often considered as marginalized groups. In general, this raises the question how and under what sociocultural circumstances they can, self-consciously, gain visibility and respect in their communities, despite their vulnerabilities (Chowdhury, 2021). The challenges are rather unequal, however, as gender diversity is personally and socially much more encompassing than veg*nism. A crucial point is that the food practices of individuals with a (well-balanced) veg*n menu have gradually been understood and accepted by nutritionists (Sabaté, 2003) as well as by parts of consumers and entrepreneurs (Salehi et al., 2023). But things are still much more difficult for attempts to improve understanding and acceptance of gender diversity (McGuire et al., 2019; Meyer, 2015), although this may vary between countries (Moretti, 2023), age groups (Diamond, 2020) and ideological groups (Swank, 2018). Hence, there are parallels, but also contrasting characteristics.
The quality of life of both veg*ns and gender-diverse persons depends on socialization experiences, participation in sub-cultures and personal development, which partly overlap with each other. This development (i.e. becoming a veg*n or a gender-diverse individual) shows identity as an organizing principle in an individual’s life, which provides a feeling of continuity but also involves many social and personal aspects that differ in importance or influence on behavior; hence, what identities come to mind and what these identities imply is dynamically constructed given the situation at hand (Oyserman, 2009). Identity-based motivation has particular relevance to understanding how individuals who are trying to change their behavior cope with difficulties that require action and effort, such as in becoming a veg*n (Rosenfeld, 2019; Jabs et al., 2000) or a gender-diverse individual (McGuire et al., 2019; Catalpa et al., 2019). They can be either motivated or demotivated to overcome the difficulties, depending on whether the change feels identity-congruent (“for people like me”) or identity-incongruent (“not for people like me”) in the particular context.
The important role of finding (virtual) community support has been documented in many publications about veg*ns (Cherry, 2015; Jabs et al., 2000; Judge et al., 2022) and gender-diverse persons (Meyer, 2015; Foster and Kerr, 2024; Teixeira et al., 2023). Hence, identity development is not only dependent on the individuals themselves, but also on connecting with people who might be like-minded, which is easier among young people, as a student and in a city. Studies have shown that being a veg*n is associated with a younger age (Allès et al., 2017; Wozniak et al., 2020), more years of education (Allès et al., 2017; Wozniak et al., 2020; Gale et al., 2007), being a student (although the prevalence of veg*ns among 100% student samples strongly varies (Aguirre Sánchez et al., 2021)) and living in cities (Sexton et al., 2022). Similar associations regarding age, education and urban living have been presented for gender-diverse persons in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2022) and the EU (de Boer and Aiking, 2025).
In terms of personal development, persons with veg*n diet choices and gender-diverse persons may have a certain affinity with particular value orientations or political preferences (and vice versa). Personal values are desirable goals, of different importance that serve as guiding principles in people’s life (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022). These include the “universalistic” values of care for nature and social justice, which are highly compatible as they can be pursued in the same action (Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022). Veg*ns are more likely to endorse universalistic values (Nezlek, 2025) (among Euro-Americans, not among Indians (Ruby et al., 2013)). Data on gender-diverse persons indicate that they are also more receptive to ideals of a just world and a healthy planet than binary genders (de Boer and Aiking, 2025). Universalistic values have ideological-political aspects (Jost et al., 2009), which guide political progressives (left-wing) in valuing openness, being tolerant to ambiguity and having a desire for change (Waytz et al., 2019) compared to political conservatives (right-wing) whose values are concerned with preserving the social order and status quo (Caprara et al., 2017). The left-right political dimension has proven capable of incorporating many types of ideological conflict (Weber and Saris, 2015). In line with their minority position, both veg*ns (Kalte, 2021; Grünhage and Reuter, 2021; Mosier and Rimal, 2020) and gender-diverse persons (de Boer and Aiking, 2025) may find progressive ideas more attractive than others. Although veg*ns are often characterized by their moral and health-related motives to adopt a meatless or animal-free diet, Simons et al. (2021) suggest, based on qualitative interviews in Germany, that there are “less conscious or unconscious drivers of veg*nism”, which involve freeing oneself from a meat production system that is perceived as destructive and threatening. In a study on the identity of gender-diverse persons, McGuire et al. (2019) describe how they experience, interpret and actively work on their own development, and subsequently may – to different degrees – attach social and political intention to gender identity (Catalpa et al., 2019; McGuire et al., 2019). In sum, veg*ns and gender-diverse persons are expected to be younger, more educated, more often being a student, living in cities and more left-leaning than the others.
2.2 Relevant differences between the countries
Veg*ns (Ruby et al., 2013) and gender-diverse persons (Diekman and Schmader, 2024) are more common in particular cultures and countries than in others. In the EU, the differences may, to a certain extent, be explained by differences between general cultural zones and between agricultural zones. Historically grown cultural, religious and/or political differences within Europe have led to salient differences between EU countries in the degree to which their cultural values shape the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions in a morally responsible way (Inglehart, 2006; Schwartz, 2014). In terms of Schwartz (2015), the cultural values in a society may emphasize “affective and intellectual autonomous” ways of living (e.g. pursuing positive experiences for themselves, versus “culturally embedded” ways of living) and “egalitarianism” (e.g. recognizing one another as moral equals, versus “hierarchy”). In the countries of Northwestern Europe, the importance of these cultural values has – as a result of many reciprocal causal processes – led to policies and practices that produce more National affluence and more Gender equality in social, economic and political life (Schwartz, 2015). The importance of the values appears to decrease in correspondence with three general cultural zones: Protestant (Northwestern) Europe, Roman Catholic (Central) Europe and Orthodox, former Communist (Southeastern) Europe (Schwartz, 2014). The role of religious and/or political influences is much larger for gender issues than for veg*nism (Corredor, 2019), as there is an increase in the discriminating norms that affect the lives of (potentially) gender-diverse individuals from the Northwestern to the Southeastern zone (Moretti, 2023).
A difference within Europe that might be more relevant for veg*nism than for gender issues refers to the intensity of the agricultural production practices in the various EU countries, which may be a trigger for veg*ns (Simons et al., 2021). The spread of meat production systems can be described in terms of the dominant farm type in a country. Based on agricultural statistics from Eurostat, Franc et al. (2021) report that in parts of Northwest Europe (e.g. Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany) as well as Austria, “specialist livestock farming” is the dominant activity. In many Mediterranean countries (e.g. Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus) and also in Finland, “specialist cropping” is the dominant farm type. The third type are countries with “mixed holdings” (e.g. Portugal, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Croatia). Although consumers often lack involvement in the true nature of meat production (Gangnat et al., 2018; Schröder and McEachern, 2004), there could be a larger likelihood that people are triggered to become a veg*n in countries where specialist livestock farming is the dominant farm type.
However, a cautionary note should be made here: The broad cultural process mentioned above highlights partly the same Northwestern countries as the distinction of dominant farm types. More generally, it must be noted that broad country-level variables are often highly intercorrelated, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions on specific influences due to multicollinearity problems, in particular if the number of countries is relatively small.
2.3 The present study
The key variables, derived from Eurobarometer 97.1 about agriculture and rural development (European Commission, 2022), are two items on diet category and gender, respectively. This data set also includes five theoretically relevant variables (age, length of education, being a student, living in cities, left-right political position) that were identified in the previous sections.
At the country level, the cultural values scores that Schwartz (2015) calculated were not available for all the EU countries. However, Schwartz (2015) demonstrates that autonomy and egalitarianism are closely linked to more National affluence and more Gender equality in social, economic and political life. As the various aspects of Gender equality are highly correlated with National affluence, it is important to note that equality in political life (a higher degree of Women’s representation in parliament) provides distinct equality-related information (Schwartz, 2015). Both National affluence and degree of Women’s representation indicate sociocultural differences that are associated with responsible (sustainable) food practices at individual level (de Boer and Aiking, 2023). In addition, the three general cultural zones and the three agricultural zones are taken into account. As an extra analytical support, the scores Schwartz (2008) calculated for affective autonomy were included, but for 24 countries only.
In the first step of the analysis, the correlations between the country-level variables are considered. More specifically, we will first examine whether the likelihoods that survey participants report to be veg*ns or gender-diverse persons were related to the country-level variables National affluence, Women’s representation, General cultural zones, Agricultural zones and Affective autonomy. Based on this information, the next parts of the analysis are restricted to the participants from countries where at least some people can be expected to self-identify as gender-diverse. Secondly, at individual level, the analysis examines associations between being a veg*n or a gender-diverse person and the theoretically relevant variables (age, length of education, being a student, living in cities, left-right political position). The next analysis assesses how veg*nism and gender-diversity are related by comparing differences in the percentage of omnivores, vegetarians and vegans across the gender categories. Finally, the Discussion will put the percentages of gender-diverse persons among the vegans and the vegetarians into the context of other work.
3. Method
3.1 Fieldwork and data collection
The survey, covering the European population of 15 years and older, was carried out in February–March 2022 by research firm Kantar. The data (N = 26,502) cover the 27 Member States of the EU. The report of the European Commission (2022) about this survey includes a description of the fieldwork but does not mention veg*ns or gender-diverse persons. The report explains how the adaptations to the COVID pandemic resulted in a mixed method approach, based on face-to-face and online interviews. These interview modes may differ in recruitment. Another difference is the presence of an interviewer whose presence may create interviewer effects on sensitive questions. Potential mode effects will be made visible in the analysis.
The data include two items on diet category and gender. Participants who answered a question about having specific dietary needs (“which means people can’t consume certain products, e.g. vegetarian or vegan”) by saying to be “vegetarian” or “vegan” are denoted here as “veg*ns”. The term “gender-diverse persons” is used here for those who responded to the standard gender question by choosing the option “None of the above/Non binary/Do not recognize yourself in above categories,” instead of the options “man” and “woman”; this approach is in line with international research (Cartwright and Nancarrow, 2022).
The other variables in the data were treated as follows. Age was recoded into six categories from 15 to 24 years–65 years or over. Length of education was based on the question how old the participants were when they stopped full-time education (categorized as at the age of 15 or below, 15–19 or 20 or above; those who were still studying were classified based on their current age). Being a student was a possible answer to the question of one’s current occupation. Size of community was a score made by the interviewer using three categories (rural, towns/suburbs, cities/urban). Left-right political position was directly asked in relation to an answer scale. The ten categories of the scale were recoded into five categories. Additionally, the variable Interview mode was used to monitor differences between face-to-face and online interviews.
The Percentages of veg*ns and the Percentages of gender-diverse persons per country were used as country-level variables. The measure of National affluence was taken from the World Bank and refers to Gross National Income (GNI) per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP) in constant 2017 international dollars, averaged over the years 2017–2020 (and log transformed). Women’s representation was the percentage of seats held by women in national parliaments and governments, taken from Eurostat and averaged over five years (2017–2021). The positions of the countries in the three General cultural zones (i.e. three categories from Northwest to Southeast Europe) were taken from the work of Schwartz (2014). Data about the three Agricultural zones (i.e. dominant farm type mixed, specialized crops or specialized livestock) in the countries was derived from Eurostat, following (Franc et al., 2021). The scores of 24 countries on the cultural value orientation of Affective autonomy were taken from Schwartz (2008). An additional country-level variable was the Percentage of interviews online.
3.2 Analysis
At the country level, the Percentage of veg*ns and Percentage of gender-diverse persons per country were correlated with each other and with National affluence, Women’s representation, General cultural zone, Agricultural zone, Affective autonomy and Percentage of online interviews. To consider the data at the level of individuals, three groups of lowest, medium and highest scoring countries were created. Focusing on individuals in the nine highest-income countries, we compared differences in percentages of veg*ns and of percentages of gender-diverse persons across the age-categories, and the categories of length of education, being a student and size of community. We also compared the left-right political positions of veg*ns and non-veg*ns as well as of gender-diverse persons and binary genders. The final analysis compared percentages of omnivores, vegetarians and vegans among the gender categories man, woman and gender-diverse. The analyses were done by adopting standard techniques (correlations, Chi-square tests, z-tests). All analyses were performed with SPSS 29 for Windows.
4. Results
The percentage of (self-identified) veg*ns, averaged across individuals and countries, was 4%; the percentage of (self-identified) gender-diverse persons was 0% in several countries and varied to 0.6%. Countries with a higher Percentage of veg*ns also had a higher Percentage of gender-diverse persons (r = 0.51, p < 0.01). Both increased with National affluence (r = 0.52 and r = 0.64, p’s < 0.01). Women’s representation was in particular related to the Percentage of veg*ns (r = 0.48, p < 0.05) but not significantly related to the Percentage of gender-diverse persons (r = 0.33, n.s.). The General cultural zones correlated not with the Percentage of veg*ns (r = −0.29, n.s.) but showed that countries in the Southeastern zone were lower on the Percentage of gender-diverse persons (r = −0.40, p < 0.05). The Agricultural zones revealed that countries with dominant specialist livestock farms were higher on the Percentage of veg*ns (r = 0.46, p < 0.05) but not much different on the Percentage of gender-diverse persons (r = 0.30, n.s.). Countries with higher scores on Affective autonomy had both higher Percentages of veg*ns and higher Percentages of gender-diverse persons (r = 0.43 and r = 0.42, p’s < 0.05). The Percentage of online interviews was not significantly related to the Percentage of veg*ns (r = 0.32, n.s.) but had a positive association with the Percentage of (self-declared) gender-diverse persons (r = 0.52, p < 0.01). Based on these results and, in particular, the central position of National affluence, the countries were divided into three groups of lowest, medium and highest levels of national income. The nine highest-income countries had about double the percentages of veg*ns (7.1%) and gender-diverse persons (0.2%) in comparison with medium- and lowest-income countries.
Focusing on the participants in the nine highest-income countries, Table 1 reports the percentages of veg*ns and gender-diverse persons across the six age-categories. In both cases, the youngest age category had the highest percentage (14.4 and 0.7%, respectively), which gradually decreased among the higher age categories (r = −0.15 and r = −0.04, p’s < 0.001). Similar tables (not shown) were created for the categories of length of education (r = 0.08, p < 0.001 and r = 0.02, p < 0.05), being a student (r = 0.15 and r = 0.04, p’s < 0.001), size of community (r = 0.08, p < 0.001 and r = 0.02, p < 0.05), interview online (r = 0.04, p < 0.001 and r = 0.05, p’s < 0.001) and left-right political positions (r = −0.10, p < 0.001 and r = 0.02, p < 0.05). For example, veg*ns and gender-diverse persons showed varying positions on the left-right dimension, but they had significantly higher preferences for the left side (55 and 50%, respectively) than the counterparts (34%).
Percentages (counts in brackets) of veg*ns and gender-diverse persons across the six age-categories in the highest-income countriesa)
| Age category | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15–24 years | 25–34 years | 35–44 years | 45–54 years | 55–64 years | 65+ years | ||
| Veg*ns | 14.4% a | 13.2% a | 7.3% b | 5.3% b, c | 4.4% c, d | 3.1% d | 7.1% |
| (168) | (156) | (115) | (81) | (62) | (73) | (655) | |
| Omnivores | 85.6% | 86.8% | 92.7% | 94.7% | 95.6% | 96.9% | 92.9% |
| (998) | (1,027) | (1,455) | (1,444) | (1,340) | (2,258) | (8,522) | |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| (1,166) | (1,183) | (1,570) | (1,525) | (1,402) | (2,331) | (9,177) | |
| Gender diverse | 0.7% a | 0.3% a, b | 0.1% a, b | 0.1% a, b | 0.1% a, b | 0.1% b | 0.2% |
| (8) | (3) | (2) | (1) | (1) | (2) | (17) | |
| Binary gender | 99.3% | 99.7% | 99.9% | 99.9% | 99.9% | 99.9% | 99.8% |
| (1,158) | (1,180) | (1,567) | (1,524) | (1,401) | (2,329) | 9,159) | |
| Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| (1,166) | (1,183) | (1,569) | (1,525) | (1,402) | (2,331) | (9,176) | |
The nine countries were: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Sweden.
Note(s): Row percentages with different subscript differ significantly after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (Z-test, p < 0.05)
Due to the small number of veg*ns, the previous analyses combined vegans and vegetarians into one category. In order to enable comparisons with other studies, however, the final analysis used the diet categories separately. Table 2 reports percentages of vegetarians and vegans across the three gender categories in the nine highest-income countries. The percentages of vegetarians significantly increased from the categories man (3.9%) and woman (7.3%) to gender diverse (11.8%); the percentages of vegans significantly increased from the categories man (1.3%) and woman (1.5%) to gender diverse (29.4%), although the number of gender-diverse person was extremely small. Percentaging in a different direction revealed that 3.4% of the vegans self-identified as gender-diverse.
Percentages (counts in brackets) of vegans, vegetarians and omnivores across gender category in the highest-income countries
| Gender category | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man | Woman | Gender diverse | ||
| Vegans | 1.3%a | 1.5%a | 29.4b%b | 1.4% |
| (57) | (71) | (5) | (133) | |
| Vegetarians | 3.9%a | 7.3%b | 11.8%a, b | 5.7% |
| (175) | (345) | (2) | (522) | |
| Omnivores | 94.8%a | 91.1%b | 58.8%c | 92.9% |
| (4,231) | (4,284) | (10) | (8,525) | |
| Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| (4,463) | (4,700) | (17) | (9,180) | |
Note(s): Chi-square = 146.371, df = 4, p < 0.001. Row percentages with different subscript differ significantly after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (Z-test, p < 0.05)
5. Discussion
This study has identified some parallels and contrasts between individuals who make distinctive diet- and/or gender-choices, based on a multi-country data set. The results show that countries with higher percentages of (self-identified) veg*ns also had higher percentages of (self-identified) gender-diverse persons and that these countries were higher on cultural values that allow individuals to choose their own paths. Other regional effects were that countries where specialist livestock farms were the dominant type of farms had higher percentages of veg*ns and that countries in Southeastern Europe had no self-identified gender-diverse persons. Online versus face-to-face interviewing mainly affected self-identification as gender-diverse. This underlines that gender-diversity was much more controversial than veg*nism. Overall, the percentages of veg*ns and gender diverse persons were very low, but they were significantly higher in the nine highest-income countries. In these countries, both veg*nism and gender diversity were significantly higher among the younger age groups, those with more years of education, those who were students and those who lived in cities. Both veg*nism and gender diversity were associated with left-leaning political positions. Also, it appeared that the identities of, in particular, gender-diverse persons and vegans co-occurred more often than might be expected by chance.
Although the results of this study are unique in comparison to studies that involved samples of volunteering veg*ns, it is valuable to compare the percentages of vegetarians and vegans who self-identified as gender-diverse. Table 3 displays the main characteristics of these studies and the key percentages. It should be noted that all the other studies refer to online panels and high-income countries. The general trend is that the percentages of gender-diverse persons are very low, but that they are often somewhat higher among the vegans (from 1.8% to 3.8%). This requires a brief comment.
Percentages of gender-diverse persons per diet category in recent studies
| Study | Subjects | Year of the fieldwork | Interview mode | % Gender diverse persons per category (counts between brackets) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Among vegans | Among vegetarians | Among omnivores | ||||
| Present study | General samples in 9 high-income countries | 2022 | Mainly face-to-face (75%) | 3.8% (5/133) | 0.4% (2/522) | 0.1% (10/8,525) |
| Mayrhofer et al. (2024) | Veg*n volunteers from Germany | 2021 | Online | 1.8% (19/1,046) and 1.5% (3/197) among “prospective vegans” | 1.1% (2/177) among other vegetarians | |
| Judge et al. (2022), study 1 | Vegan volunteers from Australia and the UK | Not reported | Online | 2.0% (9/461) | ||
| Judge et al. (2022), study 2 | Vegan volunteers from the UK and the US | Not reported | Online | 3.8% (13/340) | ||
| Dhont et al. (2021) | Veg*n volunteers from North America and Western Europe | Not reported | Online | 3.0% (10/335) | 3.3% (6/182) | |
| Gregson et al. (2024) | Volunteers from the UK | 2022 | Online | 2.8% (6/214) | 1.0% (7/723) | |
| Buttlar et al. (2024) | Volunteers recruited via research platform | Not reported | Online | 2.7% (14/514) | 1.9% (10/514) | |
There are several ways in which identities may become more linked, such as through the environment in which individuals are brought up in, their perceptions of life experiences and intra-group contact, but a full discussion of these topics is beyond the scope of this paper (see, e.g. Egan, 2012; Albaugh et al., 2025). Also, a word of caution is in order regarding the differences between vegetarians and vegans, as the studies use convenience samples of participants recruited from multiple sites (e.g. Rosenfeld, 2019; Kakoschke et al., 2023; Judge et al., 2022). Clearly, vegetarians and vegans share a similar motivation, but vegans follow the most restrictive dietary pattern (Rosenfeld and Burrow, 2017; Mayrhofer et al., 2024). In terms of identity, both groups may evaluate each other negatively (MacInnis and Hodson, 2021). Vegans see their dietary patterns as more intertwined with their identity (Rosenfeld, 2019) and they are currently more inclined to “act collectively” on behalf of a shared (virtual) group membership (e.g. promote vegan-friendly behaviors) (Judge et al., 2022). This motivation may to a certain extent be shared by gender-diverse persons, in particular, by those who actively take part in political processes to shape positive change (Compare et al., 2024; Albaugh et al., 2025). Hence, these vegans and gender-diverse persons may share a progressive ideological-political agenda, as demonstrated by a personal essay (Simonsen, 2012). This may, at a small scale, generate “elective affinities” (mutual attractions) between vegan- and gender-related lifestyles and ideologies (Jost et al., 2009; DellaPosta et al., 2015). A specific relationship was suggested in a study about young trans people in Australia. Riggs et al. (2024) propose that animals can play a buffering role against the violent effects of social norms about gender, which may be associated with a desire to connect with and advocate for the lives of animals in the world more broadly, as reflected in the commitment to veganism.
5.1 Limitations and future research
The study has several limitations. The extremely small number of observations requires a very cautious approach. An unknown number of gender-diverse persons has not self-identified as such, which prevents us from seeing the whole picture. The few people who did disclose their gender identity may be more assertive than average, although that in itself does not explain their veg*nism. The differences between face-to-face and online interviews demonstrated how sensitive the gender issue can be. A strong point of our contribution is, however, that the analysis was not restricted to the situation in one country only, and that the percentages of veg*ns and those of gender-diverse persons were associated with country-level indicators of relevant cultural values, which may support the development of minority groups.
A limitation is also that the number of countries was relatively small and that the country-level variables were highly intercorrelated. In addition, it has to be acknowledged that the interpretation in terms of Schwartz’s cultural values might miss other factors and that alternative explanations of the findings cannot be rejected. For instance, the role of religious and political factors was only touched upon. At the individual level, the data did not allow for finer distinctions, such as between ethically oriented and health oriented veg*ns. Also, our exploratory approach could use only a small number of identity-related variables, as the data set was meant for other purposes. However, these variables demonstrated consistent results that were comparable with those of other studies. Based on a larger number of gender-diverse persons (N = 131; but no data on their diet choices) the same relationships between gender-diverse choices and the independent variables was found (de Boer and Aiking, 2025) as in the present study.
Future research should further elaborate the relationships between diet and modern insights on gender identity (Hyde et al., 2019), such as the role of different degrees of masculinity and femininity among the binary genders. This work should also include the situation of previously marginalized groups (e.g. transgenders) that can open up new questions at the intersections of these topics, which are relevant to all and not just to their own group. Future work might test the associations found by using large-scale online surveys in high-income countries, focusing on segments of the population that are more open to gender diversity, such as young people. Yet, it has to be noted that the role of inclusivity and diversity in society is increasingly threatened by emerging counter movements or backlash movements regarding gender (Corredor, 2019; Compare et al., 2024) and, to a much lesser extent, veg*nism (Gregson et al., 2024; De Groeve et al., 2022).
6. Conclusions
Our exploratory results revealed several theoretically meaningful correlations at the country- and individual-level, which suggest important parallels between the situations of veg*ns and gender-diverse persons. The results once more showed that gender-diversity is much more controversial than veg*nism. A crucial point is that the choices of gender-diverse persons provide a broader view on the relationship between gender and veg*nism than those of binary gender, men and women. The consistent pattern of the findings leads to the tentative conclusion that our knowledge about the relationship between veg*nism and gender is incomplete without considering the situation of small groups, such as gender-diverse persons, who might be frontrunners and allies in the pursuit of healthy and sustainable diets. These issues deserve much greater attention in the food literature.
