As has been alluded to briefly, Singer's proposed bigotry inherent in speciesism is based solely on species, with no or very little consideration for the interests of the other sentient beings. This idea can be easily equated with racism and sexism because of the obvious connection between morally inferior consideration based solely on what may be seen as a non-moral difference. Yet the question arises as to the coherence of giving varying species members equal consideration morally. Philosopher Evelyn Pluhar notes the sharp distinction most humans wish to draw between racist and sexist bigotry and that of speciesism when she writes "Racism and sexism are plainly irrational because they do not discriminate on the basis of morally relevant differences. All humans have basic moral rights as autonomous moral agents.whereas no non-human can warrant such status" . It appears an apparent obstacle for speciesism to be taken seriously is either somehow to show its parallel with racism and sexism, or to demonstrate different species as also having "rights as autonomous moral agents". Pluhar lists some of the prominent objections to speciesism being equated with other forms of bigotry and they all come down to one of two factors; either a simple bigotry which cannot be adequately defended apart from religious appeal that humans are innately superior and more valuable than non-human animals, or as Pluhar writes, "the insistence that a high degree of autonomy is a necessary condition for the possession of basic moral rights" . The problem with the former seems apparent enough as a simple species bias, while the latter is an argument against speciesism itself, as many marginal cases of human beings cannot meet this requirement. This second argument concerning the possession of a certain degree of autonomy, and its relationship with marginal human beings will be examined later.
Philosopher Steve Sapontzis" objection to the analogy of speciesism with racism and sexism is much like an appeal to the pride of women and minorities.