Animals aren't persons: but is it time for a neologism?

Mark Rowlands argues that at least some animals are persons, based on the idea that (i) many animals can be credited with a property he calls ‘pre-reflective awareness’; (ii) the capacity for pre-reflective awareness is sufficient for a creature to satisfy the traditional Lockean definition of personhood, and that (iii) satisfaction of the traditional Lockean definition of personhood is sufficient for being a person. While I agree with (i) and can see that there is a persuasive case for (ii), I think the case against (iii) blocks the conclusion that animals are persons. I suggest that we may need instead to coin a neologism in order to express Rowlands’ insight; the concept person is insufficiently malleable to do the job.