According to the Radioislam.org (pro-Palestinian site) page Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud, the Talmud contains the following verse:
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
- Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
I googled to find the reference and went to this page. I couldn't find anything by searching the page. Does the Talmud say this?
This is a situation in which inadequate understanding of terminology causes confusion.
In the referenced text, the Jews are called Adam, and the Gentiles are not called Adam. The Gentiles are the non-Jews. Adam literally translates to "Man" (hence its appearance in DevSolar's answer).
So the people who claim that it supports considering the non-Jews to be beasts are basing it on the literal translation...
... but the literal translation is incorrect, because context matters.
When referring to human vs animal, the term Bnei Adam is used, which means "Sons of Adam" (in this case, referring to the Adam of "Adam and Eve").
In this situation, "Adam" is actually referring to the people of Israel collectively as though it is a single being. And in the context, what it's saying is that the rituals are for the people of Israel (the Jews), not for the Gentiles.
For more information, see here.
One can see the actual context, with explanation, in another way, here. Notice that it is speaking of purity of dwellings. The Talmud is guidance, more akin to the Hadith of Islam, as opposed to the Torah, which is like the Quran. As such, much of its contents reference things found in the Torah. In this case, it's referencing usages of "man" such as that found in Numbers 19:14, which says "If a man dies in a tent". The source here clarifies that "man", here, only applies to Jews.
Also note that the phrase "They are beasts" (or rather, the equivalent in Talmudic Aramaic) does not appear. This phrase is a fabrication, added by those who wish to demonise Jews.
In chapter 114b of Baba Metzi'a (page 404 of the linked PDF), I find these lines in the first paragraph to be closest to the claim:
The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; only ye are designated ‘men’.
I cannot say what other translations make of these verses, and I might have overseen some other part of 114b. But as far as I can see, I would consider the claim false, or at the least significantly exaggerated.
TL;DR - the claim is false, partly a phrase taken (slightly) out of context (the first part) and partly a complete fabrication (the second part).
I've heard this claim before, and got intrigued, luckily, I can read Hebrew:
The text can be found here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93_%D7%91
It does not mention beasts, and doesn't really refer to gentiles in general but to polytheists ("Those who worship stars and constellations"), nor does it pertain to the humanity of persons of different faiths, it isn't even a canonical position but rather a record of a certain opinion, it can be roughly translated (my translation here is based on my reading of the source text) as "In the question of impurity caused by death, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochay argued that the body of a polytheist does not defile (which is a religious term that had religious impact and caused certain requirements), and this is because some verse in the bible that uses the term 'Adam' (man) in the context of Jews and another verse that uses the same word to tell us that the a dead body (of 'Adam') causes defilement". In other words, it is a suggested interpretation of another unrelated text, not related the the humanity of people in general, if said interpretation is held as true, its only effect is to relax the Jewish requirements for handling bodies of Polytheists.
Looking further (basically looking up the quoted Rabbi), is seems that this whole interpretation was done in the context of the Roman occupation in order to be able to clear some places that were suspected as defiled to be used. There is a long tradition of interpreting texts using convoluted logical interpretations to achieve practical positive results while claiming to be based on the original text (such as allowing loans, preventing a child from being labeled a bastard, etc.) this text seems to follow that tradition by defining a term in a non obvious way for a practical purpose.
