I suggested three things which I will now restate and elaborate on: 
 # If you are capable of intelligent conversation:  
 :Neither of you have taken part in the open and earnest discussions above. This disqualifies you from asserting revert privileges.  
 # If you back up your opinions with sources 
 :You are both more than capable of citing Gary Francione, and particularly notable and respected philosophers in the area of animal rights. I admit I have read very little of that author, but what little I have read tells me that while he may be an regarded as an intellectual giant, his arguments are not based in sound science, nor are they based in sound philosophy, and even though he may be regarded as an authority in the context of animal rights arguments, he is not an unbiased source, and SlimVirgin and Viriditas' reference to a most biased source as an authority is at best a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Viriditas took issue with my insertion of the anthropomorphism concept into what she first claimed was a quote, and afterwards claimed was incorrect due to what your favourite author says, simply: "It is not a matter of anthropomorphism." So the prophet says. There are no doubt some critics among the 58,000 hits for "animal rights + anthropomorphism" 
 . My impression is that the actual depth of the above mentioned author's refutation "its not a matter of anthropomorphism" does not go much deeper. Like many pop-psychology writers, he seems to simply slide from conjecture to conjecture without actually stopping long enough to give his conjectures any substance. In any case, even citing the most revered philosophers is not a proper way to start an article, unless they have said in a cogent way what the subject is.  
 # In a properly written lede, in vogue writers such as Francione do not have ownership of the concept of animal rights, even though they may be regarded highly. There have been a great many people making various animal rights arguments, and frankly the weaker arguments do weigh down the concept in the overall balance. A general lead for a topical article does not clean up a topic just to make it look better, and neutral ethical writers do not conjure POV terms like "non-human animals" and "other sentient beings" and call them neutral.  
 # Back up your usage of those sources in accord with a neutral point of view. This seems to be a difficult part for you ladies. You can claim that your favourite pet sources are authoritative, and yet fail to see how those sources may be biased activists whom cannot be relied upon to give a neutral overview of the subject. Their pedigrees alone do not suffice, they actually have to be good at thinking. WP:WEIGHT is indeed my main argument against using such writers such as the one's you suggest as absolute authorities, as they are indisputably motivated by activist concerns. I'll give Francione gets the last word (emphasis mine): "Nonhumans [..] certainly do have cognitive states which are equivalent to human beliefs, desires, etc." - ( |  |