People-first language

It is intended to avoid marginalization or dehumanization (either consciously or subconsciously) when discussing people with a chronic illness or disability.

It can be seen as a type of disability etiquette but person-first language can also be more generally applied to any group that would otherwise be defined or mentally categorized by a condition or trait (for example, race, age, or appearance).

Advocates of person-first language point to the failure to mentally separate the person from the trait as reinforcing a sense that both the trait and the person are inherently bad or inferior, leading to discrimination whilst also implicitly reinforcing a sense of permanency even regarding issues that are likely to be temporary.

By using such a sentence structure, the speaker articulates the idea of a disability as a secondary attribute, not a characteristic of a person's identity.

In her classic textbook,[3] Beatrice Wright (1960)[3a] began her rationale for avoiding the dangers of terminological short cuts like "disabled person" by citing studies from the field of semantics that "show that language is not merely an instrument for voicing ideas but that it also plays a role in shaping ideas" (p. 7).

She concludes her arguments thus: "Since physique does stimulate value judgments, it is particularly important to use expressions insofar as feasible that separate physical attributes from the total person" (p. 8).

Another influential rehabilitation psychologist, Carolyn Vash, who also spoke from the perspective of her experience living with quadriplegia from polio, advanced similar arguments for person-first language in an unpublished address in 1959.

[7] Some U.S. organizations like the United Spinal Association have published disability etiquette guides, which prescribe people-first language.

[10] As of 2017[update], the rules of people-first language have become normative in US governmental institutions on the federal (e.g. CDC)[11] and on state levels in the health departments' Developmental Disabilities Councils e.g. Michigan[12] West Virginia[13] Idaho,[14] Missouri[15] Georgia,[16] or Texas.

[26][27][28] Some advocacy groups and organizations such as Autism Speaks,[29] The Arc[30] and Disability Is Natural[31] support using people-first language.

The resolution dismissed the notion that "the word 'person' must invariably precede the word 'blind' to emphasize the fact that a blind person is first and foremost a person" as "totally unacceptable and pernicious" and resulting in the exact opposite of its purported aim, since "it is overly defensive, implies shame instead of true equality, and portrays the blind as touchy and belligerent".

C. Edwin Vaughan, a sociologist and longtime activist for the blind, argues that since "in common usage positive pronouns usually precede nouns", "the awkwardness of the preferred language focuses on the disability in a new and potentially negative way".