I generally use the term "nonhuman" to describe animals who are not humans.I find no inherent negativity in this word.This excerpt from Preface on Language by Joan Dunayer explains more about the word

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Excerpt from - Preface on Language  by Joan Dunayer  SPECIESISM, Preface. xi - xii

Words have political effect. They can foster oppression or liberation, prejudice or respect. Just as sexist language denigrates or discounts females, speciesist language denigrates or discounts nonhumans; it legitimizes their abuse. Throughout this book I’ve painstakingly tried to avoid speciesist, sexist, and otherwise-biased language.

     In keeping with scientific fact, I include humans in “animals” “mammals,” “primates,” and “apes.” Usage that excludes humans from animalkind maintains a moral divide between humans and other animals. Rather than speaking of “humans and animals,” I speak of “humans and nonhumans.”

      Even the word nonhuman divides all animals into two, seemingly opposed categories: humans and everyone else. With equal validity we could categorize all animals as robins and nonrobins. Still, nonhuman animal (nonhuman for short) avoids limiting animals to nonhumans. Also, for now we must speak in terms of humans and all other animals because all other animals lack legal rights. Some people contend that the prefix non- automatically assigns a negative valuation. To the contrary, word such as noncombatant, non-sexist, and nonpartisan are neutral or positive.

     Because the category “animals” includes humans, I use nonhuman rights when referring to the rights only of nonhumans and animal rights when referring to the rights of all sentient beings (including humans), as in animal rights movement; they seek to expand fundamental rights from humans to other animals.

     Currently, biologists classify as “animals” some organisms that lack a nervous system and are therefore extremely unlikely to be sentient (capable of experiencing). In moral terms these organisms belong with other insentient things, such as bacteria, rather than with human and nonhuman beings. For this reason I don’t include them in “animals” (Biologists themselves may eventually place these anomalous organisms in a separate taxonomic category.) When I speak of “animals” or “nonhumans,” I mean sentient beings, who possess a nervous system. Because all sentient organisms are conscious beings, unique individuals, and, in a moral sense, persons, I sometimes refer to nonhumans as “beings, “ “individuals,” and “persons.”

      My pronoun use acknowledges nonhuman consciousness and individuality. Every sentient being is “who” (not “that” or “which”), “someone” (not “something”). According to current scientific knowledge, every animal is male, female, or hermaphroditic, so I use he, she, or she/he (alternatively he/she) for any specific nonhuman individual.

[Eduardo Terrer]

Hello.
I think if it is true that the term does not imply anything negative. But likewise, I think thathappens when it precedes a verb or action.
For example, "Do not think of a white bear"is reminiscent of a white bear.
"Do not miss this opportunity " marketing can be considered a bad slogan. Right, I imagine, would "seize this unique opportunity. "

But the use of "non-human" I see no adverse modification may have. When a verbdoes not precede the unconscious mental change happens I think not