Person-First vs. Identity-First Language: Which Should you Use?

Written by Mary Ann Meussling

Every year Dictionary.com reminds us that language is more fluid than we think with their annual word drops. Their most recent slew of additions included 566 new words, 348 new definitions to existing words, and 2,256 revised definitions. Needless to say, language evolves as rapidly as the world we live in. But that raises the question: how do we keep up? The answer? With an open mind and help from your fellow humans, because believe it or not, someone does know how to use "paraprosdokian" in a sentence.

The topic of identity is an ongoing conversation that has become increasingly prevalent, especially regarding gender, sexuality, and race, and interwoven with each discussion is language, or rather, its ever-changing nature. New terminology is consistently emerging and words once deemed politically correct are being reexamined as more diverse voices enter the identity conversation. One particularly hot topic is "person-first" language, commonly used in reference to someone with a disability or chronic condition, which goes something like this:

Wrong: A disabled person.

Right: A person with a disability.

Except it's actually not as simple as that. The issue here isn't that person-first language is wrong, per se, but rather, it falls under the assumption that using identity-first language means reducing someone to a singular, "undesirable" trait. In reality, it's far more nuanced. Language is a powerful tool that shapes our perceptions and interactions. In the realm of identity, the choice of words can significantly impact how individuals feel and are perceived. The two prominent approaches to this are person-first language and identity-first language. Understanding the differences between these can foster more inclusive and respectful communication.

Person-First Language

Person-first language, also known as person-centered language, prioritizes the individual before their condition or characteristic, placing an emphasis on the person instead of defining them by a specific trait. For example, rather than saying "an autistic person," one would say "a person with autism," or instead of "a disabled person" one could use "a person with a disability". The approach of literally putting "person" first is rooted in the belief that someone's condition or disability is secondary to what makes them an individual.

Identity-First Language

Identity-first, or identity-centered language, puts one's characteristic or condition at the forefront. It's also what HR has probably been telling you is a no-no. In reality, though, many feel their disability or identity is an integral part of who they are and should be recognized as such. For instance, someone might prefer "an autistic person" instead of "person with autism." Advocates of identity-centered language argue it can foster a sense of pride and promote inclusion by removing the stigmas that neurodiversity is something to tip-toe around rather than be celebrated.

Which Should You Use?

Identity largely stems from personal experiences and perspectives, meaning you'll likely be using both depending on preference. Some folks feel that person-first language better respects their individuality and avoids the potential stigma associated with their disability or condition. Others find that identity-first language affirms their sense of self and aligns with their understanding of their own identity.

The best approach is to listen and respect individuals' preferences for how they wish to be referred to, and don't be afraid to ask if you aren't sure. By doing so, we not only validate their identity but also promote inclusion in our ever-evolving world.