What a terrible article. It's because of articles like this that so few people truly understand what veganism is and why there is so much confusion about it.
You say: "There are many reasons to go vegan, for the animals, the environment, your health, or any other reason you have." No, there are many benefits from going vegan (heath, etc.) but by definition veganism is about the non-participation in exploitation and oppression.
You even have it right there in your own article, for God's sake, when you quote the vegan society definition! "“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". The founders of veganism and early pioneers, such as Donald Watson and Leslie Cross (the latter in particular) made it quite clear that veganism was about nonviolence, non-exploitation. People in those days didn't even know whether they could survive on a vegan diet, so it had nothing to do with health.
The fact that it turns out vegans can actually be healthier is a happy by-product.
As for that line: "If you think you’re vegan, you’re vegan" has a more ludicrous statement ever been made? There are people regularly eating eggs who think they're vegan, and who call themselves vegan (probably because they've read nonsensical and misleading articles like this one). To correct them and point out that regularly and deliberately eating eggs (as opposed to occasionally by accident) is not to call them a terrible person - it's simply pointing out a fact. Vegans don't eat eggs.
"If you think you’re vegan, you’re vegan" reminds me of all those racists who regularly start sentences with the words "I'm not racist, but..." Could it be said that if you think you're not racist, you're not racist? No, of course not! That would be ludicrous!
It doesn't mean someone is a terrible person if you point out that, actually, what they're saying is based on a hidden prejudice they're unaware of of that it is offensive to someone of a different race, but nevertheless, they're racist. Fact.
What about someone who does not understand what it means to be Jewish. Would you say they're Jewish simply because they think they're Jewish? Or is there a definition that requires a certain set of criteria be met before someone is defined as 'Jewish'?
Same with veganism, if they're choosing to eat eggs, or cheese, or drink milk, or buy leather, etc. then they're simply not vegan and to pretend otherwise is to further blur the definition of what is, in effect, a philosophy and a social justice movement - it is not a diet.
"If you care and you’re kind, that’s what counts." Caring is good. Kindness is good. There are people who eat the flesh of animals, who pay for animals to be killed and butchered, who 'care' and are 'kind'. But they're not vegan.
I heard about a guy once who thought he was a Kryptonian and that he could fly. He jumped off a building and died. Thinking he was a Kryptonian didn't make it so, just as someone thinking they're a vegan doesn't make them vegan. If we ignore definitions or bend those definitions to suit our own purposes, then they become meaningless, which is actually what a lot of non-vegans would like to happen. Let's not play into their hands. Indeed, I am sure you will get a lot of positive comments and support, a lot of people praising your article because it's "non-judgemental" or whatever. It makes people feel comfortable with carrying on being complicit in exploitation and oppression. It doesn't challenge anyone. "I'm kind, that's all that matters" and meanwhile the exploitation, torture and killing of billions of sentient beings continues.
As vegans, let's be proud to stand up and make it clear that we are against exploitation. We are against oppression. We are against injustice. We are against cruelty. There is power in that and there is the potential for meaningful, permanent change.
