In a move that’s raising eyebrows and sparking intense online debate, the animal rights organization PETA has taken on a surprising new target: the Cambridge Dictionary. Known for campaigning against animal testing, factory farming, and the use of animals in entertainment, PETA is now demanding a change in how the English language defines one of the world’s most misunderstood creatures—the rat.
According to PETA, the current definition of “rat” in the Cambridge Dictionary goes far beyond the biological classification of the animal. It includes negative slang meanings such as “a despicable or untrustworthy person,” which the group argues unfairly vilifies these intelligent, sensitive animals. In a formal letter to the editor of the Cambridge Dictionary, PETA has asked for the definition to be re-evaluated and revised, calling it speciesist and outdated.
Is this a step too far—or a powerful reminder of how language influences behavior and empathy? Let’s break down what PETA is really asking for, why it matters, and how it could impact the broader conversation about animals and ethics.
Introduction: A Bold New Front in Animal Rights Advocacy
Why the Dictionary Is Now Under Scrutiny
The Cambridge Dictionary has long been regarded as an authority on the English language. Its definitions help shape how learners, educators, and the general public understand words—not just what they mean literally, but also what they imply emotionally and culturally. So when PETA decided to target this linguistic giant, it wasn’t a whimsical move—it was strategic.
To PETA, language isn’t just a tool; it’s a weapon. And in their view, certain dictionary definitions are contributing to the mistreatment of animals by embedding negative stereotypes into everyday speech. By calling a traitor a “rat,” for example, society perpetuates the idea that these animals are inherently bad or dirty, rather than living beings with emotional depth and social intelligence.
PETA is arguing that changing how we talk about animals can lead to changing how we treat them. It’s part of a larger effort to dismantle speciesism—the belief that humans are inherently superior to other species.
PETA’s Mission Beyond Traditional Activism
While most know PETA for graphic protest images or celebrity-endorsed campaigns, the organization has increasingly been focusing on more nuanced battles—like language and media representation. They understand that cultural change often starts with the stories we tell and the words we choose.
This is not PETA’s first foray into language reform. In 2019, they asked Dictionary.com to revise its definition of “animal” because it included the phrase “brutish or beastlike”—which they argued was derogatory to non-human animals. That effort attracted headlines and mockery alike, but it also sparked real conversations about language ethics.
This latest push with the Cambridge Dictionary is a continuation of that philosophy: change the language, and you might just change the world.
The Current Definition of ‘Rat’
How the Term Is Commonly Defined
If you flip open the Cambridge Dictionary or search online, you’ll find that “rat” has two primary definitions:
- A small rodent with a long tail, often found in cities, sewers, or rural areas.
- Slang: A despicable person, often one who betrays others; a snitch or informant.
It’s this second definition that PETA is challenging. While it reflects how the word is commonly used in modern English, PETA argues that it unjustly ties the rodent to betrayal and moral weakness. The result? An entire species is stigmatized because of its metaphorical use in human drama.
Let’s be honest—we’ve all heard phrases like “He’s such a rat” or “Don’t be a dirty rat.” These sayings, while commonplace, carry baggage. And for an advocacy group like PETA, that baggage isn’t harmless—it’s harmful.
Connotations of Deceit and Betrayal
Why does this matter? Because when we consistently associate a type of animal with betrayal, filth, or danger, it affects how we treat that animal in real life. Rats are often the victims of poison traps, extermination efforts, and unethical lab testing—not just because they carry disease (which many animals can), but because we think they’re disgusting or evil.
In PETA’s view, definitions like these don’t just reflect society—they reinforce cruelty. They argue that the Cambridge Dictionary, by legitimizing such associations, is passively encouraging a mindset where mistreating rats is normalized.
PETA’s Request to the Cambridge Dictionary
The Letter to the Editor: What It Said
PETA’s formal letter to the editor of the Cambridge Dictionary is not a rant—it’s a reasoned appeal. They ask for a revision that distinguishes the biological rat from its metaphorical usage, while providing context that the slang term is derogatory and not reflective of the animal itself.
In the letter, PETA points out that including negative metaphors alongside literal definitions without clarification contributes to harmful stereotypes. They’re not asking for censorship—they’re asking for fairness. The idea is to treat animals, even in language, with the same kind of respect that society is increasingly learning to extend to humans of different cultures, genders, and backgrounds.
The request is part of what PETA calls an anti-speciesism campaign, designed to root out the subtle ways in which our language justifies human dominance over animals.
Specific Grievances About the Definition
Here’s what PETA found most problematic:
- Using “rat” as a synonym for “traitor” or “snitch” with no explanation.
- Failing to differentiate between the animal’s natural characteristics and the metaphorical human insult.
- Reinforcing the idea that rats are inherently dirty, sneaky, or untrustworthy.
They recommend that the dictionary either remove the slang usage entirely or provide clear disclaimers stating that it is a metaphor that unfairly maligns real animals.
Why PETA Believes the Definition Is Problematic
The Harm of Negative Language Toward Animals
For PETA, this isn’t just about rats. It’s about how language plays a foundational role in how we treat other species. When we use animals as insults, we reinforce the notion that they are lesser beings. That mindset then seeps into how animals are used in science, food, clothing, and entertainment.
Language influences culture—and culture influences behavior. If rats are always the villain, then saving them doesn’t seem important. But if they are viewed as intelligent, emotional creatures—as they are in science—then maybe they deserve more than traps and poison.
How Language Shapes Societal Attitudes
We’ve seen this before. Words used to describe humans—especially marginalized groups—have evolved over time as our understanding of equality deepened. Why shouldn’t the same happen for animals?
In PETA’s worldview, dictionaries have a moral responsibility to lead that evolution, not lag behind it. They’re not saying you can’t ever use slang—they’re saying we need to be more conscious of what those words mean and the effect they have.
