Paulina Romero, Senior Manager, Partnerships at NOD, reflects on how language shapes the way we see the world, and each another. Drawing on her own experiences with disability and her perspective as a Spanish speaker, she explores the nuances of person-first and identity-first language, and why the most respectful approach begins with listening to how people choose to identify themselves.
Language is not just a way to describe the world around us; it also shapes the way we think. That idea lies at the heart of conversations about disability language.
While the distinction between person-first language (“person with a disability”) and identity-first language (“disabled person”) may seem subtle, the words we choose carry meaning beyond their definitions. They influence how we think and shape how we understand and relate to one another.
Consider a simple question: would you be able to point north at any given time?
Most people wouldn’t. In our daily lives, we rely on left, right, street names, and GPS. But in some languages, such as the Aboriginal Australian language Guugu Yimithirr, everyday directions are not based on a person’s perspective. Instead of saying left or right, speakers use absolute directions like north, south, east, and west. Rather than saying, “The coffee shop is on your left,” they might say, “The coffee shop is to your east.”
Because their language requires this awareness of direction, speakers of these languages develop a stronger sense of their surroundings. What feels like a difficult task to many of us becomes second nature to them. That is the power of language. It does not just help us communicate. It influences what we notice, how we understand the world, and how we experience it.
Language also influences and reflects how we perceive others.
Take Spanish, for example. Growing up speaking Spanish, I learned early on that there are both formal and informal second-person forms. This means the word “you” would differ based on the person you are speaking to, with the formal form “usted” traditionally used to communicate deference and social hierarchy.
With time, however, this has changed to reflect an ongoing cultural shift. In some Spanish-speaking communities, younger generations are using these forms less and less frequently, reflecting what is believed to be a broader shift in perspective around status, authority, and connection.
These examples illustrate a simple but important point: language does more than describe the world around us. It influences how we understand it.
The same is true when we talk about disability.
Person-first language gained traction in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in professional spaces. It places the person before the disability, emphasizing that a person is more than their diagnosis or disability. It challenged the idea that disability should define someone or be the first thing others see. Examples include “man using a wheelchair” and “girl with autism”.
Over time, however, some have begun questioning whether separating a person from their disability is always the most affirming approach. For many, disability is an important part of their identity and lived experience, not something to be minimized or set apart. This has sparked a return to the use of identity-first language, which has gained momentum in recent years. Examples include “epileptic child” and “amputee”.
Neither approach is universally preferred. While person-first language remains the default in many settings, that should never override an individual’s stated preference. If someone tells you how they identify, use the language they prefer.
As someone with a disability myself, I appreciate the simplicity of that rule. It works. But we can also be more thoughtful about how language is used.
The same words can feel respectful in one situation and reductive in another. The question is not simply whether disability is mentioned, but why it is being mentioned.
In my experience, identity-first language feels most natural in three situations:
- When referring to a group, such as disabled workers or blind voters
- When the disability is directly relevant to the conversation, such as blind users in a discussion about website accessibility
- When describing someone rather than identifying them, such as saying “she is disabled” rather than referring to them as the “disabled girl.”
For example:
- Companies benefit from listening to disabled employees.
- We received feedback from a Deaf customer about improving the accessibility of our kiosk.
- She’s diabetic, so she always carries emergency snacks.
In each of these examples, the disability provides meaningful context rather than serving as the person’s defining characteristic.
Compare those with:
- The company is committed to expanding opportunities for the disabled.
- The autistic student has a question for the speaker.
- A blind woman is waiting for you out front.
Unless the disability is relevant, leading with it can imply that that is the person’s most defining characteristic.
I think about this in my own life. I have no problem saying, “I’m diabetic,” when it helps explain a situation. If I were late because I had to pull over to treat low blood sugar, mentioning that I’m diabetic provides useful context. Likewise, I wouldn’t mind someone retelling that story by saying I was diabetic because the information is relevant.
On the other hand, if someone introduced me as “the diabetic woman” when my diabetes had nothing to do with the conversation, it would feel different. In those moments, my disability becomes my primary identifier rather than one characteristic among many.
These examples highlight why conversations around identity-first and person-first language are so nuanced. The same approach will not feel right for everyone, because language does more than describe who we are. It shapes how others see us and how we understand ourselves.
###
About the National Organization on Disability (NOD)
The National Organization on Disability (NOD) is committed to increasing employment opportunities and fostering inclusive work environments for the millions of Americans with disabilities. NOD offers a suite of employment solutions tailored to anticipate and meet leading companies’ workforce needs and has helped some of the world’s most recognized brands be more competitive in today’s global economy by building or enriching their disability inclusion programs.
For more information about NOD, visit www.nod.org.