After reading both Tom Regan, and Peter Singer viewpoints on speciesism both of them seem to make some valid points in respects to some cultures, religions, and ideologies that animals have spirits just like humans in which all spirits must be respected. Like any "Ism" having a unique systematic practice with its own philosophy speciesism can be easily be translated into both racism, and sexism. To believe or have the mindset that human beings are superior over animals is classic speciesism.
As stated by Tom Regan (1985),"The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money" his statement has some cultural, and religious validity. In some of the large religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam that God had an original covenant with man which included dietary laws eating meat of the earth such as fruits & vegetables. According to Genesis 1:29 it states "And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree that has seed-yielding fruit—to you it shall be for food". Additionally Peter Singer (1989) in a unique understanding acknowledges that there is a difference between human being animals, and no humanoid animals that we all should have rights.
I agree that treating animals differently than humans is speciesist to an certain extent for numerous reasons. First, with the law or society in general children do not receive the same treatment as an adult due to children lack of understanding on various things so likewise animals don't receive the same treatment. Next, what is good for one person may not be good for the next in the same instance animals would fit that scenario. Furthermore, we all are sentient beings having a spirit or life force if you will, and to treat any other creature differently as in oppressing or harming would only be a violation if it is not in our nature. For example most people believe eating meat is natural well some research as stated by Aimee Kuvadia says,"in the Philippines, the wealthiest children, who were eating the highest amounts of meat, were more likely to get liver cancer than their mostly vegetarian counterparts". Plus, to add onto if we were meant to animals as human being we should be able to bite into a living animal, and not
get sick and die to this day I have yet to meet anyone that could bite into a living creature
and not get sick. I have been vegan for about 4 years now the sense of respect for other living
creatures goes up tremendously. Treating animals differently than human beings is very
comparable to both sexism, and racism especially racism for the simple fact even to this
day many people treat black people less than human in fact 3//5 human such as in the case Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) as the old saying goes. Most type of "Ism" is rooted in superiority meaning "I'm better than you" in which case I would say different, and being different doesn't mean to put others down or disrespect so the people with a superiority complex feel the need to demonstrate their thinking of superiority. Speciesist is not only wrong, but it hurts the person more that is doing the hurting such as poor health, an unbalanced ecosystem to where certain animals that would eat vegetation are now dead so things grow wild causing governments to contract workers to chop down unnecessary vegetation cutting to budget that could be used for other things such education or health. These claims cause for a change if a person eat, and think savage then chances are that person is going to be savage so by fixing one problem it becomes a template for other similar problems.
Reference:
1.) Mill, J. S. (2008). Utilitarianism, In J. Bennett (Ed. & Rev.) Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/mill1863.pdf
2.) Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). New York: Basil Blackwell.
3.) Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-162). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
4.) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:29
5.) http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf
6.) http://www.ryot.org/humans-designed-eat-meat-science-says-no/943959
7.) Cases that used ⅗ human clauses
a.) Dred Scott v Sandford (1857)
b.) Butler v Perry (1916)
c.) Jones v Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968)
d.) Memphis v Greene (1981)