amputeeot:

I have a doctoral degree in occupational therapy. In undergrad, I took a disabilities studies class, and in grad school I took several more disabilities studies classes. One thing drilled into my head in these types of classes is “Person-First Language” I.E. “Person who uses a wheelchair” vs “Wheelchair bound” and “person with autism” vs “autistic”.

In my undergrad class we did not really discuss with other people with disabilities what they thought of person-first language. My undergrad class was taught by a non-disabled professor who had an adult son with cerebral palsy. My grad school classes were taught by both people with and without disabilities. 

I myself have multiple disabilities, both mental and physical (Among them: I’m HH, an amputee, have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, have depression and depersonalization disorder, et cetera) and despite what has been drilled into my head, I prefer identity-first language myself, because my disabilities, while not my entire identity, are a part of my identity. 

People have many aspects to their own identities. In the occupational therapy world, we call these “occupations”, which means, “aspect of yourself that occupies your time”. Among some I am a: woman, sister, occupational therapist, vlogger, public speaker, atheist, amputee, writer, daughter, body-modification enthusiast, and so on.

I am NOT a “person who has womanhood”, “Person who has sisterhood”, “Person who is an occupational therapist” “person who vlogs” and so on. These are my occupations and I use occupation-first language when I talk about them.

Why would it necessarily need to be any different with disability? Disability is an occupation and is part of my identity. I’m not a “person with an amputation”, I’m an amputee. When I am using a wheelchair, I’m a wheelchair-user.

Some disability-related language is outmoded and just flat incorrect. A good example is “Wheelchair-bound” because A: No one is “bound” to their wheelchair and B: wheelchairs set people free, they don’t bind them. Imagine if someone called me “prosthesis-bound” because I use a prosthesis to get around. My prosthesis allows me to function better and ambulate more freely in my community. Oddly, I am actually more “bound” (by way of suction, as in the prosthesis is literally stuck on my body) to my prosthesis than the average wheelchair-user is “bound” to their wheelchair! However there are more alternatives than just “person-first” language.

Person-first language creates a linguistic space between the person and their disability. I think that space contributes to seeing disability as a negative aspect of one’s identity and therefore has the potential to contribute to ableism. Note that I say “potential” because there are different schools of thought on exactly what constitutes person-first language.

My preference, generally, is identity-first language. Example: Hearing-impaired girl vs She is Hard-of-Hearing vs She is a person with a hearing impairment. I think, personally, that the middle one is best. It’s not disability-first, it’s not quite person-first, it’s identity-first. 

Having said that, I prefer person-first language for mental illness, because my mental states fluctuate. I might have depersonalization disorder and depression but “being depersonalized” is a fluctuating state.

But, that’s my own personal preference. The thing is, lots of people have different preferences about how they would like to be addressed, and when you’re mucking about on the internet or talking to someone you don’t know, you might not know what type of language they prefer. Some communities, in general, actively dislike person-first language, so it’s good to keep that in mind.

Also, sometimes person-first language just makes more sense linguistically. I have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, I am not an Ehlers-Danlos Syndromite or whatever.

Anyway, here are some tips about how to know when to use whatever language, if you’re curious.

1. Ask a person what they prefer. 

2. Don’t ever tell a person with a disability that they are using the “wrong” language for themselves. If someone who is an amputee wants to call themselves “handicapped” or “handicapable” and you think such language is condescending but you yourself are not an amputee, respect that person’s personal choice of self-identifying language. 

3. If you interact with a community of people frequently (whether it be the Deaf community or amputee community etc), figure out if that community has a general consensus on language and go with that.

4. Recognize that while some language can contribute to oppression of people, actual oppression is of far greater concern than language which has the potential to contribute to oppression.