How person-first language isolates disabled people
Note: This article uses a couple of uncensored, ableist slurs as examples of language carrying stigma in the first paragraph of the section “Who does person-first language really benefit?”. In context, they do not refer to anyone in particular.
As I progress through college writing, arts, and social science courses, I often run into this hard-and-fast rule that, when describing disabled people, person-first language is “correct”. Person-first language includes terms like “people with disabilities”, as opposed to the identity-first “disabled people”. Though there were good-faith arguments for using person-first language over identity-first language when it first emerged, in the decades since it has often been questioned. As a disabled person, I strongly prefer identity-first language for two main reasons: person-first language limits our identity creation and social ties, and it benefits able-bodied people over disabled people.
Effects on disabled identity, communities, and pride
One of the primary arguments against person-first language is that it separates people from their disability, which often is central to their life experience. “Disabilities” like autism, deafness, blindness, and paralysis alter a person’s perception and sensory experiences. After being disabled for…
