Many more people advocate for the boycotting of real fur than those who boycott leather, denoting a certain double standard similar to that within the meat farm versus fur farm debate. To treat them differently is to claim that the animals harvested for their leather somehow experience less torture and pain, which simply is not true. PETA states, "For the animals involved, leather production is just as violent, painful, and deadly as the fur trade. Buying leather also supports the meat industry." The Asian market slaughters innocent dogs for leather every day, yet, for some reason, the standard is different in that market than for fur. Because leather and fur are both collected in horribly cruel and inhumane ways, consumers should treat them the same.
Consumers do not necessarily treat these two trades differently - many people who refuse to buy real fur also boycott leather. Additionally, within the collective global consciousness, they are not treated the same way by consumers; fur is solely a fashion accessory, while leather can be used for a much wider assortment of everyday things like furniture, car seats, tools, and book bindings. Leather is significantly cheaper than many of the alternative materials that animal rights activists propose, so it is easier for lower income people to afford the material itself. Leather and fur are inherently different materials.
[P1] Any market that possesses similar means of collection and production should be treated similarly. [P2] Leather and fur are both harvested incredibly cruelly and inhumanely from animals, yet consumers choose to prioritize boycotting fur over leather. [P3] Leather and fur should be treated in the same way by consumers, because they are the same.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P2] Leather and fur are used for vastly different things, regardless of how curely both of them are harvested. [Rejecting P3] Leather and fur should not necessarily be treated equally.