Of course it's anti-egalitarian. Why in the world should humans and non-humans be treated the same way ? It would be quite an insult to humanity.
It depends on how one opts to frame the issue. I do not support all species having the same rights since we possess limited quantities of resources to work with and they have inherently differing attributes. The inequalities dividing individuals of varied species are markedly greater than those dividing individuals within any given species. As I mentioned before, what I favor is extending social rights to all members of each species (including our own) in accordance to their typical mental faculties. This is to suggest humans should be entitled to more rights than dogs, for example, but that the relatively advanced minds of dogs would also make it morally dubious for a human society to treat dogs and, say, sea cucumbers identically under the law.
Hypothetically, if we at some point in the future make contact with a sentient species of critter from another world, and that species happens to possess far greater mental abilities than us, would it not be insulting to
them if we were to cling to a notion that only our species is worthy of being treated with the privilege of personhood? And what if they were to have the same attitude toward us? Do you think it would be righteous or amoral for another species to round us up for butchering to be consumed as exotic cuisine, be killed for some body part or another traditionalists among the alien species consider to possess medicinal or supernatural properties, or to be enslaved? After all, we may seem like mere "beasts" or primitive savages from their point of view. Is there a good rationale for it that doesn't rely on some intolerant, exclusive variation of nationalism, selfish egoism, or some other dismissive notion like "might makes right?"
It is perfectly alright for us to agree to disagree with mutual respect if that's how it will need to be but I reckon when anthropocentrism is taken too far it starts to very strongly resemble other bigoted perspectives such as sexism, racism, ageism, and some forms of nationalism. If taken to their furthest conclusions my values are wholly incompatible with human supremacy.
Who said anything about not taking mental faculties into account? "Personism" would only apply to people. Obviously when most of us think about killing animals for food we're thinking about animals with lower intelligence than humans, or in other words beings we don't consider to be people. I imagine if cows started talking and holding intelligent conversations our answer in regards to cows would be different.
The notion of being a person is socially constructed. It need not be exclusively reserved for members of one species. Varying gradients of partial personhood could also conceivably be extended to other species. As with all ethical dilemmas we face, the lines drawn will always be subjective in nature. I would argue some forms of life are so basic we can do anything we want with them without reservation, whereas some other critters, even if we consume them, should be entitled to certain standards of conscientious treatment all throughout the process. What most offends me is our species' tendency to take whatever it wants however it wants without factoring into consideration or placing sufficient weight on the interests of others we coerce and exploit.
Poll
