Speciesism vs Racism/Sexism

A common argument point between non-vegans and vegans is centered on human-focused views. Often a non-vegan, to address The Argument from Marginal Cases will defer to a value in Humans and Humanity, thus immediately covering all bases. Comparisons then are levied against such positions based on Racism and Sexism. This article is meant to address the ways these conversations take place, how they are argued for and how they are argued against.
== Veganism doesn't necessitate non-speciesism ==
An important thing to note before proceeding that while the racism/sexism comparison is often used by the vegan against the non-vegan position, veganism does not entail holding a non-speciesist view. In my interactions with vegans, I see roughly a 50/50 split (With, of course, other possible outliers we won't cover) on the following positions:
Position 1: Holding a value for humanity is wrong, tantamount to racism/sexism and should never be held.
Position 2: Animals are of the type of moral value to not be exploited, but readily admit they would choose a human over another animal, all things equal, and it is not wrong to do so.
=== Thought Experiment ===
In position 2, "all things equal" meaning the exact same context, the only variable being one is human and the other is a different animal. To test your intuitions on this, imagine a scenario where you must choose either a human infant or an infant pig. The one chosen lives, the other dies. The human infant has the same mental capabilities as the pig and has no capacity to become any smarter (Or if you prefer "more sentient", use that.) The human will not live longer, does not have a society that will care if it dies nor any other extrinsic factors to tie break that is any different than the pig. This is merely your choice.
If you think that the choices are equal, you fall in position 1.
If you pick the human child, you fall in position 2.
=== Let's not oversimplify - Complicated, but a skippable part. ===
While the above thought experiment may roughly gauge where you sit, it is an oversimplification. 
Argument (1) - Some people may admit they would choose the human, but not because it's a moral decision, it's just a preference. In a sense, this position matches a "moral equality" but not a "preference equality", if one holds that such a distinction exists. 
Counter Argument to A1 (2) - This distinction does have a weakness in that it allows non-vegans to say "I have a preference for not eating marginal cases that I don't have for animals. This is not a moral distinction."
Counter Argument to A2 (3) - The vegan may then retort that acknowledging the moral/preference distinction, yet not putting marginal cases in the moral distinction is an objectional view. The vegan may claim they have both the animal and the marginal case in the moral distinction, and the tiebreaker was a preference.
Notes - 
Possible Counter Arguments are to deny the distinction, to say moral statements are a subset of preference statements, or to say the original choice to not choose the human is immoral.