5 Myths about Person-First Language

Image by @kandrerios via Unsplash

This whole “person-first vs. identity-first” conversation should actually be really straightforward. Disabled people have preferences, others should respect those preferences, and then everyone should move on. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, which is why several myths about person-first language refuse to go away. Here are five of the ones that I keep seeing. 

1. You Should Always Use Person-First Language 

We’re starting off strong with myth number one: You should always use person-first language. This is a tough one to combat. Somewhere, right now, there’s probably a professor telling a classroom full of future social workers that they should never say “disabled” or “autistic.” 

Only, that’s not true. There are actually plenty of instances where you should use identity-first language. Tons of autistic people prefer the word “autistic,” for instance. And I’ve never heard anyone insisting we should say “person with blindness” or “individual with deafness.” 

2. You Should Always Use Identity-First Language 

Okay, got it. So, disabled people prefer to be called disabled. Then we should always use identity-first language. Cool. 

Wait. Back up for a second. I know, I know. It’s so much easier to have a simple “rule” to apply across the board, right? But identity-first language doesn’t always work, either. 

Some people with disabilities do prefer person-first language. If you’re referring to someone with that preference, then you should defer to their wishes. It’s all about respecting people. 

Plus, there are some disabilities that just don’t have a good adjective. Autism is a noun, and autistic is its adjective. Down syndrome is a noun, and…well, there’s no good adjective here. So if you said “He’s Down syndrome,” you’d be incorrect because a person can’t be a disability. Since Down syndrome is the name of something instead of a descriptor for something, “He has Down syndrome” would be a better choice of words. 

3. Disabled People Can’t Speak for Themselves, so You Should Always Listen to the Experts

It’s ironic, isn’t it? Disabled people often prefer identity-first language. Non-disabled “experts” insist on person-first language. 

And then we all listen to the “experts” and completely ignore the disabled people in the name of “treating them like people.” Make it make sense. You’d think that if we wanted to treat someone like a person, we’d, you know, listen to them. Trust that they know what they’re talking about. Include them in the conversations that impact their lives. 

Disabled people are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. They don’t need anyone to speak for them or over them. And yes, that includes non-speaking people, because not all communication is verbal. 

4. If You Use Identity-First Language, You’re Saying that the Person is ONLY Their Disability 

We have lots of words to describe identity. Words for gender, race, profession, and all kinds of other things. Now imagine that we treated all identity-based words the same way that we treat disability-focused words. 

“Don’t call her a woman. She’s a person with female-ness.” 

“Stop calling him a teacher. He’s a person who teaches.” 

“You shouldn’t say ‘white.’ You need to say ‘person with more sunscreen than spices.’” 

Obviously, that would sound ridiculous. And exhausting. You couldn’t get through a conversation without sounding like you were written by AI. 

When I refer to my aunt as a “teacher,” I’m not saying that’s ALL she is. She’s also a brunette. A woman. A cooking show enthusiast. A football fan. Lots of things. None of those descriptors imply that the others don’t matter.  

So why, when I describe someone as “autistic,” would that imply that they can’t be lots of other things, too? 

5. You Should Use Person-First Language to Remind Yourself that Disabled People are People 

“You should use person-first language because disabled people are people!” 

Um, yes? Yes, they are. I would hope that goes without saying. And again, what makes disability so different from any other type of identity here? 

If I mention that I’m a woman, and you chime in with “No, you’re a PERSON,” that implies that you don’t think women are people. Which is a problem. And if a disabled person says “I’m disabled,” and you say “No, you’re a PERSON,” then guess what? Same implication. 

Again, there’s a strong irony here. If you always need person-first language to remind yourself that disabled people are people, then you’re ultimately treating them like they’re not people. 

Final Thoughts 

I’ve written about some clues that can tell you which type of language to use, but at the end of the day, here’s the most important thing: listen to disabled people. They’ll always be the ultimate authority on disability-related language.