Identity-First or Person-First Language: Why It Matters and Personal Preferences

Language shapes perception, and the debate between identity-first (e.g., “autistic person”) and person-first (e.g., “person with autism”) language reflects deeper conversations about respect, autonomy, and societal attitudes. This article explores why these distinctions exist, how they impact marginalised communities, and why individuals or groups may prefer one approach over the other. Understanding these nuances is key to fostering inclusivity and respecting personal identities.

Defining Identity-First and Person-First Language

Identity-first language (IFL) places a person’s condition, disability, or identity before the person (e.g., “disabled person”). It is often chosen by those who view their identity as inseparable from their experience. Conversely, person-first language (PFL) emphasises the individual before their condition (e.g., “person with a disability”), aiming to avoid reducing someone to a diagnosis.

These frameworks are not merely grammatical choices but reflect philosophical stances. IFL advocates argue that conditions like autism or deafness are intrinsic parts of identity, not ailments to be separated from the self. PFL supporters, however, stress the importance of recognising humanity first, particularly in contexts where stigma persists.

Historical Context and Shifting Norms

The rise of person-first language in the 1980s and 1990s coincided with disability rights movements, which sought to counter dehumanising labels (e.g., “the handicapped”). PFL became a standard in medical and educational settings, reflecting a shift toward empathy and individuality.

However, the 2000s saw pushback from communities like autistic and Deaf activists, who reclaimed identity-first terms as empowering. For example, the slogan “nothing about us without us” underscored demands for self-determination in language. This tension highlights how societal progress often requires revisiting once-accepted norms.

Why Preferences Differ Across Communities

Preferences for IFL or PFL often depend on cultural, social, and personal factors:

• Pride vs. stigma: Marginalised groups may use IFL to celebrate identities others have stigmatised. The neurodiversity movement, for instance, frames autism as a natural variation, not a defect.
• Context of use: In medical or legal documents, PFL may prioritise clarity, whereas grassroots activism often leans into IFL.
• Individual choice: Some prefer PFL to avoid being defined by a single trait, while others see IFL as affirming their lived experience.

Notably, these preferences are not monolithic. Even within communities, debates persist. For example, some mental health advocates prefer PFL (“person with schizophrenia”), while others argue that IFL (“schizophrenic person”) reduces stigma through normalisation.

The Role of Power and Agency

Language choices are deeply tied to power dynamics. Historically, marginalised groups have had terms imposed upon them by outsiders. Reclaiming language—such as the LGBTQ+ community’s use of “queer”—becomes an act of resistance. Similarly, disabled people using IFL challenge narratives that frame disability as inherently negative.

Conversely, PFL can serve as a tool for those who feel their condition is secondary to their identity. For example, someone with a chronic illness might say, “I have diabetes,” to emphasise that it does not define them. Agency is central: the right to self-identify must lie with the individual, not external assumptions.

Controversies and Misunderstandings

Critics of IFL sometimes argue it “focuses on the disability,” inadvertently reinforcing stereotypes. Others claim PFL can feel sanitised or dismissive, as though the speaker is uncomfortable acknowledging difference. Such disagreements often stem from conflicting views on what constitutes respect.

For instance, the phrase “person with blindness” may be intended as neutral, but some blind activists argue it implies blindness is a burden to be minimised. Meanwhile, using “blind person” normalises blindness as a neutral trait. These nuances reveal how language reflects broader societal attitudes toward difference.

Practical Guidelines for Respectful Communication

Navigating these preferences requires sensitivity and flexibility:

• Listen to individuals: If someone specifies a preference, honour it. Defaulting to PFL without inquiry can overlook community-driven norms.
• Research community standards: Organisations led by marginalised groups often publish guidelines. For example, the National Association of the Deaf supports identity-first language.
• Avoid assumptions: Do not presume all members of a group share the same view. When uncertain, politely ask.

Language evolves, and staying informed is an ongoing process. For instance, while “hearing-impaired” was once common, many now prefer “Deaf” or “hard of hearing,” terms that reject a deficit-based framing.

Conclusion: Respect as a Common Goal

The debate between identity-first and person-first language underscores a universal truth: language is personal. While IFL and PFL arise from different philosophies, both aim to affirm dignity. The key takeaway is to prioritise individual and community preferences, recognising that language shapes reality. By listening, learning, and adapting, we foster a culture where everyone’s identity is acknowledged on their own terms.

Whether one chooses “autistic person” or “person with autism,” the goal remains mutual respect. As societal understanding grows, so too must our commitment to using language that empowers rather than alienates. Inclusivity is not about perfection but about willingness to engage thoughtfully with the ever-changing tapestry of human identity.