Euphemisms, anthropomorphisms, and equivocation are established characteristics of traditional equestrian language. 'Evasion', 'resistance', and 'disobedience' are common labels assigned to unwelcome equine behaviours, implying that the horse is at fault for not complying with the human's cues and expectations. These terms appear to overlook multiple motivations that may directly result in the horse offering unwelcome responses, which may then inadvertently be reinforced. This article revisits some of the anthropocentric inferences in these terms and explores the harmful consequences of such convenient but incorrect labels before proposing a redefinition of 'conflict behaviour' in human-horse interactions: Responses reflective of competing motivations for the horse that may exist on a continuum from subtle to overt, with frequencies that range from a singular momentary behavioural response to repetitive displays when motivational conflict is prolonged. Addressing how inadequate terms may mask pain, obscure the horse's motivation, and deflect human culpability, this commentary highlights the merits of a multidisciplinary approach to terminology across equine research. Acknowledging that variables contributing to behaviour can be biological, environmental and anthropogenic, it emphasises the need for more investigation into the relationships between equicentric motivations reflecting equine telos and problematic horse behaviours.