DO you refer to horses as ‘it’? Maybe sometimes, maybe when they’re not yours? Maybe in speech, but not on the written page, or vice-versa? A reflex action perhaps? A matter of ‘good’ grammar? Or purposely, when writing scientific articles, to maintain objectivity. We might not think of it (the practice) as inherently wrong, more of a linguistic tradition than a moral stance. And does it matter? Is it all just window-dressing, another sop to the touchy-feely, animal rights brigade?

What we call horses should, I feel, be less a question of grammar and more a question of how we perceive and value them. In standard English, ‘it’ is used routinely for commodities and objects (being inanimate and without gender), for some animals (especially non-mammals and if we don’t know or care about their gender) and even very occasionally by some for people (e.g. babies). Though sometimes not for cars and boats!

Value and closeness

I posit that the choice we make (if we think about it at all), reflects our sense of value and closeness, respect even. This must matter to all concerned with the breeding, keeping, trading, treating and competing of equids. Am I alone in wincing when I hear a race commentator speak of a horse:

The empathy shown in one part is offset by the inference that we are talking about a commodity. Do they even hear the irony in speaking of ‘heart’ and ‘it’ in the same sentence? Empathy may be suffering a back-lash in some quarters as linked somehow to ‘woke’, but I wonder do non-horsey people sense a disrespect (even if not intended) on hearing us routinely speaking in this way.

Listening at conferences and reading non-scientific articles in recent times, I have become more aware how common the practice is among horsey folk, including vets:

Horses (and I suggest other equids such as donkeys, but I may be biased here!) occupy a unique place in human culture - as companions, workers, athletes, and individuals with distinct personalities. These are sentient beings, after all, whose complexities, characters, and emotional maturity we are increasingly beginning to understand. If we refer to them as commodities, does the language drive how we treat and care for them?

Reflects the bond

Horse owners and keepers often use gendered pronouns in relation to their own horses (after all, they know their gender!). The practice reflects the bond they share with this horse, who is not an object: they have quirks, preferences, moods, and a history. Calling such an animal ‘it’ would seem to strip away that individuality, reducing a living being to something lessor. But they may not think, speak or write of horses in general in the same way.

You ask: is there any harm in referring to ‘it’ if I don’t know a horse’s gender or if it doesn’t seem relevant? It may simply be that I don’t know. But best to be aware, I reckon, that others might think it’s because you don’t much care, value or fully respect the animal.

And we who use equids for a variety of purposes that serve our needs, shouldn’t readily dismiss the wider world we live in.

There is growing awareness in this broader community of animal sentience - the idea that animals can experience pain, pleasure, and emotions. As society becomes more sensitive to animal sentience, many people now avoid ‘it’ when referring to mammals like dogs or dolphins, but not species they consider pests or somehow harmful, like rats! Instinctively and routinely choosing ‘he’, ‘she’ or singular ‘they’ might both remind us and signal to others the respect with which we hold horses.

Ultimately, whether we should call horses ‘it’ depends on what we want our words to convey: if we aim to recognise horses as sentient beings with their own identities, using ‘she’, he’ or ‘they’ is a more thoughtful choice.

Of course, you can’t tell people what language to use, or at least if you do, they might likely resent it, and that defeats the purpose. Folks have to choose for themselves. Language is not just about rules, and it evolves - it reflects our actual values, but also how others perceive these too.