person-first language
What to know
Proponents of person-first language say using phrasing like “with a disability” or “has a disability” avoids reducing a person to their disability. Person-first language can replace terms like “diabetic” with phrases like “person with diabetes.” It can also be used to avoid phrases such as “the disabled” or “the blind,” which can obscure diversity within disability communities. The Americans With Disabilities Act uses person-first language.
That said, disability justice-oriented self-advocates have argued that person-first language can frame disability as inherently negative. By contrast, “identity-first” language, such as “chronically ill person” or “disabled person,” conveys that they cannot or don’t want to separate themselves from their disability; it is not a condition they have but part of who they are.
If necessary and relevant to include in your content, following the person’s preferred terminology whenever possible aligns your framing with their lived experience. Pay attention to how they refer to themselves, or ask them, “How do you prefer we speak about the context of [their disability]?”
Additional resources
- Identity-first vs person-first language is an important distinction (Association of Health Care Journalists)
- Person-first language: What it means to be a “person” (National Institutes of Health)
- Person First Language: Usage guidelines (DC Office of Disability Rights)
Summary
Person-first language refers to the practice of leading with the individual rather than their condition, such as writing “person with a disability” instead of “disabled person.” Some strongly prefer identity-first language, such as “chronically ill person” or “disabled person,” as they cannot or don’t want to separate themselves from their disability or illness in the same way that person-first language seems to encourage. Taking into account the person’s preferred terminology whenever possible aligns your framing with their lived experience.