A biologist would only take umbrage rhetorically, which is fine, but they'll never categorize a rock, a flower, or a human as 'a horse' so in reality it's not a problem.
While 'value' is surely in the eye of the beholder ... whether or not something fits into the category is not as subjective.
And frankly, the 'big question' is 'who is the beholder' - which is something that materialism is struggling to tell us.
We might as well just link to the basic problem statement rather than recapitulate 3000 years of philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
I don't think biologists would agree with you about the horse. It's actually consider a crisis in the philosophy of biology that the concept of species is ill-defined. [1] Like I said, the resolution to me is pragmatic: the definition will depend on whether it is effective relative to some purpose.
1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/