Home / Glossary / Blind
Blind
Also written: Legally blind, Low vision, Limited vision, Partially sighted, Visually impaired
identity-termself-id-requiredevolving-usage
At a glance
Source-by-source
“"Blind" may be used for people who have complete or almost complete loss of sight. … It is best to ask your sources what they prefer … Many prefer "blind" or "blind person," while others prefer "a person with blindness."”
NCDJ — the chapter's anchor — accepts "blind" for people with complete or almost complete loss of sight, and reserves "low vision," "limited vision," or "partially sighted" for those with some remaining sight. It leaves both the term and the people-first-vs-identity-first choice ("blind person" vs. "a person with blindness") to the individual.
“Use the term blind only when the person has complete loss of sight and the term legally blind when the person has almost complete loss of sight. Other terms also may be acceptable. It is best to ask the person which term he or she prefers …”
The Diversity Style Guide, drawing on the American Foundation for the Blind, sets a precise scale: "blind" only for complete loss of sight, "legally blind" for almost complete loss (20/200 acuity or less), and "low vision," "limited vision," or "visually impaired" for partial loss. It notes many people with vision loss are not considered blind, and that self-identification governs the final choice.
“Blind (for someone who has complete loss of sight) Legally blind (for someone who has almost complete loss of sight) Limited vision/Low vision/Partially sighted/Visually impaired (for someone who is neither legally or completely blind)”
MSC carries the same AFB-derived scale as NCDJ and DSG but stops at the vocabulary — it's a bare suggested-language list with no ask-the-person or identity-first-vs-people-first layer. Its value here is chronological: a 2024 glossary repeating the framework verbatim shows the degree-of-loss scale had settled into general progressive practice, not just disability-beat style guides.
Audience notes
- Journalists and editors
- Match the term to the degree of vision loss: "blind" for complete or near-complete loss, "legally blind" for the 20/200 threshold, and "low vision" / "limited vision" / "partially sighted" for partial loss (NCDJ, Diversity Style Guide). "Visually impaired" is widely used but some object to "impaired" as deficiency framing. Ask the source which term and whether they prefer "blind person" or "person with blindness."
- Advocates and internal comms
- Don't use "blind" or "blind spot" as a metaphor for ignorance or oversight — the sources frame the literal term around precise, person-led description, and figurative uses cut against that. When in doubt, name the specific condition or its effect rather than reaching for a catch-all label.
- Self-identification governs
- NCDJ and the Diversity Style Guide defer to how the person describes their own vision: the right term is the one they use for themselves, and the identity-first ("blind") vs. people-first ("a person with blindness") choice is theirs to make. MSC's table supplies the degree-of-loss vocabulary without addressing individual preference.
Synthesis
The three sources agree closely, and the agreement is about precision rather than avoidance: “blind” is an acceptable, usable term, but only for the right degree of vision loss. NCDJ (the chapter’s anchor), the Diversity Style Guide, and Movement Strategy Center all set out the same three-tier scale. “Blind” is for complete loss of sight; “legally blind” is for almost complete loss (the clinical band of 20/200 visual acuity or less, per the American Foundation for the Blind, which both NCDJ and the DSG cite); and “low vision,” “limited vision,” “partially sighted,” or “visually impaired” describe people who retain some sight. The recurring caution is that most people with vision loss are not blind, so reaching for “blind” as a catch-all over-states the condition.
That is why the page is a nuanced-use entry rather than a clean avoid: none of the sources rejects “blind,” but each ties it to a specific meaning, and NCDJ and the DSG then hand the final choice to the person. NCDJ is explicit that the people-first-versus-identity-first decision belongs to the individual (many prefer “blind” or “blind person,” others “a person with blindness”), and the DSG’s rule turns on whether the person refers to themselves as legally blind. The one term the sources flag for friction is “visually impaired”: widely used and generally acceptable, but, like “hearing impaired,” some object to “impaired” because it frames the condition as a deficiency.
The guidance is stable across the corpus. The DSG entry (drawn from the AFB) and NCDJ’s 2021 guide give the fullest treatment; Movement Strategy Center’s 2024 glossary carries the same scale in a shorter suggested-language form, showing the AFB-derived framework had settled into general progressive practice by then. This page sits beside deaf and disability as a specific-condition identity page within the disability chapter.
Audience notes
See the structured audience notes above: journalists should match the term to the degree of vision loss and ask the source’s preference; advocates should avoid the “blind”/“blind spot” metaphor; and across the board the person’s own self-description settles both the term and the identity-first-versus-people-first question.
Related terms