PETA’s headline-grabbing call for people to stop using the word “pet” is leading to a flurry of discussions online—here’s why it’s so important.

Simply put: If we have the opportunity to use kinder, more respectful language when referring to other living, feeling beings, why wouldn’t we?

People who love their dogs or cats often refer to them as “pets” and to themselves as their animals’ “owners,” but this implies that the animals are no different from cars, sofas, or other possessions. Referring to—and thinking of—animals not as sentient beings who have personalities and emotions but rather as inanimate objects can affect our treatment of them.

This speciesist worldview, which using words like “pet” and “owner” helps perpetuate, is part of the reason why some people think nothing of acquiring dogs in the same way they would buy a fancy handbag or pair of shoes and then discarding them once the novelty wears off—because they see animals not as individuals but as objects or commodities. Puppy mills have taken advantage of this mindset, promoting the  purchasing of dogs, who will end up being treated like disposable fashion accessories.

The idea that our word choice matters is backed up by academic research. The Journal of Animal Ethics, for example, published a paper highlighting the fact that derogatory words such as “pet” and “pest” affect the way we treat animals.

The researchers suggested using language that shows mutual respect between humans and the animals who live among us—that’s why, instead of “pet,” we recommend “animal companion,” and instead of “owner,” we suggest “guardian.”

Referring to and thinking of animals not as sentient beings who have families, personalities, and emotions but rather as owned objects allows humans to justify using them in any way they see fit.

The associations we have with the language we use are strong. And when we refer to an animal not as “she” or “he” but as “it”—the same word we assign to an inanimate object—it implies that animals are things, like bikes or video games, not individuals.

Animals don’t exist for our entertainment or pleasure. They aren’t a substitute for a burglar alarm. They aren’t ours to use as decorations or toys. They’re living beings, and our language should reflect that.

The way we think about other animals continues to evolve. And the more we learn about them, the more we’re amazed by their intelligence, self-awareness, communication skills, social structures, unique abilities and, most importantly, their undeniable capacity to suffer and feel pain, which we can no longer ignore if we aspire to have an ethical society.

We understand that this is a new concept, but our language has always evolved, and changing the way we talk about animals so that it better reflects our treatment of them is a natural step.

There are many words and phrases that were commonly used 50 years ago that most people wouldn’t dream of using today, because, thankfully, we’ve come to understand how hurtful and harmful they are. So, as we learn more and more about animals—their personalities, emotions, and ability to feel pain and suffer—it’s time we started phasing out harmful words that  normalize abuse and exploitation.

Choose words that show respect. And don’t be shy about telling those around you that our words matter.