In the modern age of having so much media and literature at the tips of our fingers, words hold more power than ever before. The language we use around specific topics and groups has become increasingly nuanced and controversial, and is always changing. One example of this is the debate over Person-First Language (PFL) vs. Identity-First Language (IFL) when discussing disability.
For the disabled community, opinions on this decision come from complicated personal experiences. Each person has different reasons why they prefer to use PFL, phrased as “person with a disability,” or IFL, such as “disabled person.” Both perspectives have their merits, both have spaces where they are more appropriate and, most importantly, both options are completely valid. Whichever way a person chooses to phrase their identity, it should be exactly that: their choice. As a disabled person who prefers to use IFL for myself, I have been told countless times – almost exclusively by non-disabled individuals – that the way I choose to identify myself is inherently incorrect and offensive. This is not an uncommon experience for members of the disabled community who chose to use IFL, and that is an inexcusable reality. The language used to represent an individual should be that person’s decision.
Let’s get one thing straight: PFL should be the default, at least when addressing a general audience. Advocacy for the use of PFL came into existence as a response to the stigmatization of many terms associated with disability. Putting the words “person,” “persons” or “people” before the word “disabled” is supposed to emphasize that disability is only one part of a person’s identity, and that this term is not more important than personhood.
There are many members of the disabled community who are made uncomfortable by IFL, and some find it offensive, as they believe that it is important to accentuate that they are people before they are disabled. While I do not personally subscribe to this, I agree that all people with disabilities have unique experiences with ableism in regards to language, and I will support their decision to utilize this language. It is important to be able to address the community as a whole in a way that does not isolate a sub-group of those people due to the language choices. Therefore, media addressing people with disabilities as a whole should always default to PFL, as well as local, state, federal and international legislation – which is true for existing legislation such as The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 2006.
However, PFL should not be the only way people with disabilities are allowed to be represented, and represent themselves, in literature, conversation or any other form of media. When telling an individual’s story, their preference on language is important. To many, myself included, the use of IFL is an important step in reclaiming the term “disabled” as a more positive idea. Putting the word “disabled” after “person” can imply that disability is inherently a negative trait. This insinuates that disability is a weight or burden rather than a part of our identity. I will always refer to myself as a disabled person, just as I will always refer to myself as “a Christian,” rather than “a person who is Christian,” or just as I refer to myself as “a woman” rather than “a person who is female.” The use of PFL on an individual level diminishes the importance of disability on who I am as a person, and I would hope that others would be able to respect that.
IFL is often discouraged, and even vilified, in the interests of making non-disabled people comfortable. Over recent years, the term “disability” seems to have acquired a negative stigma, with many non-disabled people avoiding using or highlighting the word. They are often more comfortable using PFL, because the word “disabled” is not the first thing they see, hear or say. The adjustment of language for the convenience of the non-disabled is also responsible for the existence of infantilizing and offensive euphemisms such as “differently-abled,” “handi-capable” and “special needs.” Typically, it does not matter if people with disabilities reject these terms, non-disabled voices always seem to be more valued.
People with disabilities are not a monolithic group; we are a collective of people who all have different opinions and ways we prefer to identify ourselves. While I acknowledge that the different terms and when to use them may be confusing at first, it should be expected that, as a form of general respect, everyone puts effort into representing the disabled community to the fullest extent possible. When relevant, ask the person/people you are referring to how they would like to be described. People with disabilities are too often silenced or ignored, even within debates that directly affect their lives. Some may think it is an awkward question to ask, but it is incredibly meaningful to many within the community of disabled people to feel that their voices are valued and understood. Words hold power, and using the right ones can make the difference between someone feeling silenced and disrespected, or getting a sense of autonomy and choice that we are often deprived of in public discourse.
