I RECENTLY heard a top-level rider describe a horse as “resentful” in the context of the horse not “sharing the work ethic we need”. Horses aren’t resentful. Horses are reactive.

The language used around horses in the equine industry has significant implications for animal welfare, often shaping how horses are perceived, treated, and valued. Terminology that objectifies, anthropomorphises or commodifies horses can subtly erode empathy and justify certain treatment. For example, describing horses as “naughty” or “stubborn” when they show resistance may ignore underlying discomfort, pain, or confusion, shifting blame to the animal rather than prompting a deeper welfare assessment.

Such language normalises outdated practices and can desensitise handlers to signs of distress, reinforcing a culture where the horse’s voice is marginalised.

Reframing language to reflect the sentience and individuality of horses is a simple but powerful step toward better welfare. Awareness of language doesn’t just shift perception – it can transform practice, advocating for horses as beings with intrinsic worth, deserving of respect, understanding, and compassion.

Responsible language is not political correctness; it’s a cornerstone of ethical horsemanship.