Language has always been a huge interest for me and I’m forever interested in the terminology used concerning disability. This interest is probably going to become a series of posts around language and disability, where I discuss the way terminology has changed and how its used by different people. To start this series off, I’m going to look at the ever-controversial ‘disability’ vs ‘disabled’ debate.

Not that old chestnut!

Yes, that old chestnut. Back in the day, much as I tried to think it shouldn’t matter, this terminology is loaded and rubs people up all kinds of ways. Have you ever had anyone come up to you and say ‘you shouldn’t say (insert term) because of xyz’? Have you ever not been sure how to respond or wondered why they’re bringing it up? I have.

If you have a disability or have ever been around disability before, the ‘disabled’ vs ‘disability’ debate has probably come up for you before. Whether you should say ‘person/people with disability’ or ‘disabled people/person’ depending on who you’re talking to can quickly get uncomfortable, especially if the person you’re talking to has particular views on disability. I’ve found it hard sometimes to know what kinds of decisions I can make about my choice of language or how to argue my viewpoint. Have you had that problem too?

Consider this blog article an attempt to help you unravel this and hopefully guide you to being able to argue your viewpoint in either direction.

So, what’s the difference?

Before you argue in either direction, first you need to know how each perspective is different. Person with disability is known as ‘person-first language’ and disabled person is known as ‘identity-first language’.

Beginning with ‘disabled person/people’, this choice in language-use places the experience of disability first and foremost in the dialogue. Though it’s considered an “older” way of talking about disability, it’s becoming more and more commonly used, especially by some disability advocates and activists. Usually ‘disabled person/people’ is used in order to emphasise the social model of disability, that is, that people are disabled by the society and culture in which they live. Putting disability first highlights that experience, and makes it front and centre. ‘Identity-first language’ also emphasises how integrated disability might be for someone’s experience, they see their identity of disability as closely entwined with who they are. So when you’re using this type of language you’re acknowledging how you are disabled by the structure of your society, and also saying something about how you see yourself and your disability.

Person-first language, like “person with disability” or “people with disability” is a lot more common nowadays and probably what you’re going to hear most often. Basically the thinking behind person-first language is you place the emphasis of the person before the disability. It’s argued that by using this language, you’re putting disability into the context of a host of other experiences that person has had that makes them who they are. So some people find this language more suitable to them, as they just don’t strongly identify with having disability front and centre of how they see themselves.

Identity-first advocates say that by using person-first language you are effectively labelling ‘disability’ as something negative, because you’re distancing the person from the description. But then person-first advocates will counter that and say when you introduce someone, would you automatically need to use descriptions before their personhood or that person’s name?

What’s the big deal though?

​At this point, you might wonder, why does it even matter? They both sound pretty similar for the most part. If you use one or the other, you’re still part of the same community. Well, it becomes a bigger issue because disability is a loaded term. There is a long history concerning disability and the rights of people who are identified with that label, a lot of that history placed disability into a context of charity, pity and as something negative, that today it is still trying to rid itself of (It’s a history, I won’t get into in this post – but I can in a future post if there’s interest); really the ‘big deal’ is this is an argument about what language best suits the purpose of alleviating disability of this history in the present day.

Whichever direction you go, this argument gets deeply entrenched in the politics of disability. To be honest, I don’t think it’s avoidable, I just think you need to understand the difference and argue that viewpoint well.

What language is best?

I don’t think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer (sorry for all those who wanted me to throwdown and tell them the best way forward!). Our experiences of disability are so diverse that I don’t think any person can tell you how is best to talk about that experience. It should be a decision that comes from how you see yourself and your disability, and what you feel comfortable with.

In a broader societal sense, “people with disability” or “person living with disability” are currently most commonly used for political-correctness, and some will try to tell you that’s best. If you’re not sure how someone will react or if you’re not sure, you can use this language.

Personally, I use a mixture of both types of language, depending on what I’m talking about and who I’m talking to. If I’m in a situation where I’m talking about my own experiences, my identity and my community, then I’ll use “disabled person/people” a lot more. If it’s a more broad conversation or a situation that requires more care or nuance, I’ll adopt person-first language (person/people with disability).

At the end of the day, if you want my advice, you can talk about yourself how you choose. No one can tell you what disability is like for you.