Person-First Vs. Identity-First Language: How To Be Most Inclusive
Increasing awareness around the significance of language may have led some individuals to wonder about the most respectful way to talk about or refer to people with disabilities. Disability rights activists often advocate for one of two strategies: person-first language or identity-first language. Both options are valid, but there are some significant differences, and it can be crucial to understand why individuals might choose either format.
History of disability language evolution
While the disability rights movement has existed since the 1800s, shifting language use around people with disabilities was first pioneered by an advocacy group named People First, formed in the 1970s. People First highlighted the importance of self-advocacy within the disability community, arguing that decisions that could impact disabled people should not be made without the input of disabled people themselves. This concept continues to be integral to the disability rights movement of today, exemplified through the phrase, “Nothing about us without us,” which is also the slogan of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network.
People First was formed in part as a response to a group that advocated for parents with disabled children and whose model was “We speak for them.” Parental advocacy did result in some significant positive changes for disabled people, including creating tailored education programs to serve the specific needs of children with disabilities. However, disabled people are fighting also to be able to advocate for themselves. Suppose you have a child who does not use verbal communication or requires significant round-the-clock support. In that case, it can still be crucial to understand the disability rights movement and how to advocate for your child.
The People First group got its name from opposing a common practice at the time: defining people solely by their disability, i.e., saying “disabled person.” People First argued that people with disabilities were people like anyone else, and their humanity and dignity should be respected. They believe that people with disabilities should not be defined or classified based on their disability.
This concept was further built on in the 1980s by the national advocacy group People With AIDS, part of the ACT UP coalition. People With AIDS wanted to push back against being classified as AIDS “victims,” which they believed had connotations of helplessness and defeat, or AIDS “patients,” which they associated with passivity and dependence on other people. The use of people-first language to describe people with disabilities, medical conditions, or mental health disorders began to become more mainstream.
Person-first language
Person-first language is any language choice that lists personhood ahead of disability. It usually follows the format of “[term for a person] with [disability].” Examples include:
- “Person who uses a wheelchair.”
- “Student with autism.”
- “People with Alzheimer’s disease.”
Due to the disability rights activism of the 1970s and 1980s, person-first language was long considered the most respectful way to refer to people in the disability community. Person-first language is used in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passed in 1990, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) passed in 1997, and Washington, DC’s People First Respectful Language Modernization Act, which requires explicitly “respectful language” when addressing people with disabilities. Person-first language continues to be the norm at most colleges and universities, medical settings, and government-sponsored disability support programs.
Person-first language is seen as aligning with the social model of disability. The social model of disability argues that most people with disabilities experience impairment in their daily lives, not specifically because of their disability but because society is not set up to allow people with disabilities full participation. According to the model, disability advocacy should not focus on “fixing” people with disabilities because they are not broken. Instead, change might be made to ensure society is more accessible for everyone, regardless of ability level.
Person-first language is starting to be seen as a way to humanize other conditions that society has long stigmatized. For example, instead of saying “bipolar person,” it could be considered more inclusive to say “person with bipolar disorder.” Within the recovery community, there has been a push to move away from phrases like “drug addict” and towards phrases like “person with a substance use disorder.” This shift could frame addiction not as a defining and inherent characteristic, which may increase the likelihood of people interpreting substance use as a moral failure, but rather portray it more accurately as a treatable medical condition.
If you are struggling with substance use, contact the SAMHSA National Helpline at (800) 662-4357 to receive support and resources.
Identity-first language
Identity-first language flips the order of person-first language, using a person’s disability as an adjective to describe them, usually written as “[disability adjective] [term for a person].” Examples include:
- “Blind person.”
- “Autistic individuals.”
- “Disabled students.”
When using identity-first language, people from certain disability groups may consider it more respectful to capitalize their disability descriptor word (this is common in the Deaf community and Autistic community). Using lowercase letters for descriptor words may be acceptable when the words are not being used to directly describe a person or a group of people (i.e., “deaf accommodations,” “autistic traits,” etc.).
Identity-first language is preferred by some disabled people for the following reasons:
- They believe their disability is an integral and defining trait of who they are, and they would like to refer to it as such.
- They are proud of being a member of the disabled community and do not want to minimize their disability status in any way.
- They believe identity-first language is more effective when normalizing disability.
- They argue that person-first language communicates that the disability needs to be separate from the person in a way that makes it seem similar to a disease.
- They see the central argument for person-first language as advocating that disabled people need special language choices, which they may interpret as condescending or implying that disabled people are more sensitive or “touchy” than non-disabled people.
- They compare the language used to describe other identity groups and make the argument that because it is considered respectful to say “Black people” or “Jewish people,” advocating for disabled people to be referred to differently implies that there is something wrong with having a disability as compared to other identity traits.
- They do not believe they are living with a disability or condition but identify with their label. For example, some Autistic individuals may identify as neurodivergent instead of disabled.
Which language choice is better?
People with disabilities are not a monolith, and even within specific disability groups, there may be people who prefer to be referred to in different ways. For example, some Autistic people may prefer to be referred to as an “Autistic person,” while others may prefer to be called “a person with autism.”
As with some other identity characteristics, it can be most respectful to ask the person or people you are interacting with how they want to be referred to. Some organizations or groups may have a style guide with specific information on describing people from certain disabled populations. However, it can be most effective to consult disabled people directly and consider doing research on current disability activism before choosing a term. If you are not disabled, try to avoid stating which term disabled people “should use” in your opinion.
Many national organizations argue that when in doubt, it may be most respectful to default to person-first language, as it is the standard in disability-related legislation and federal programs. Another way to acknowledge the varied preferences of people within the disability community is to alternate between person-first and identity-first language. If you refer to a person or group in a way that they perceive as disrespectful, you can apologize and be mindful of their preferences in the future.
Finding support
Understanding the complex ways people with disabilities navigate the world can be complicated. Living with a disability in a society not currently set up to accommodate many people with disabilities can cause difficulties and stress. In these situations, it may be helpful to process your emotions with a counselor who can provide mental healthcare.
Accessibility issues in the medical system could make it difficult for people with disabilities to attend traditional in-person therapy appointments. In this case, online therapy through a platform like BetterHelp could be a helpful alternative. With online therapy, you can attend sessions from the convenience of home, using whatever support systems you prefer to communicate with your therapist effectively. For example, you can set up phone, video, or live chat sessions.
Research has demonstrated that online therapy can be as effective as traditional in-person therapy and could be even more effective for people who require additional accessibility accommodations. Talking to a therapist may help you process your experiences with a disability and understand how to support people with disabilities most effectively.
Takeaway
- Previous Article
- Next Article