Home / Glossary / Disability
Disability
Also written: Disabled, People with disabilities, Disabled people
self-id-requiredpeople-first-vs-identity-firstevolving-usage
At a glance
Source-by-source
“In a world built to shut people with physical, mental, and emotional disabilities out, it is therefore paramount to use people-first language, to reject a purely “medical” framing of disability, to always use disability and mental health terminology accurately …”
SumOfUs frames disability through an anti-ableism lens: default to people-first language, reject a purely medical framing of disability, and ask the individual for their preferred terminology. Its specific recommendations include avoiding metaphorical or flippant use of disability terms and not villainizing, sentimentalizing, or heroizing people with disabilities.
“While it is usually acceptable to use these terms, keep in mind that disability and people who have disabilities are not monolithic. Avoid referring to “the disabled” … When describing individuals, do not reference disabilities unless it is clearly pertinent to the story.”
NCDJ, the corpus's dedicated disability source, treats “disability” and “disabled” as generally acceptable while cautioning that the community is not monolithic. It advises against the collective “the disabled,” against referencing a disability unless pertinent, and — in its companion entry on disabled people vs. people with disabilities — defers to the individual's stated preference between identity-first and people-first language.
“Practicing people-first language means recognizing that everyone is first and foremost a person, not their disability or other identity. … Sometimes individuals prefer “identity-first” language. … In all cases, ask people how they want to be identified …”
Sierra Club prescribes people-first language as its default, tracing the concept to the disability justice movement, while noting that some people prefer identity-first language. The guide's governing rule is to ask each person how they want to be identified rather than impose either form.
“Language should be selected with the understanding that the individual's preference supersedes matters of style. If you are uncertain about how a person identifies, it is recommended that you ask their preference.”
APA's second edition grounds disability language in the person-first/identity-first distinction and makes the person's stated preference decisive: person-first emphasizes the individual, identity-first treats the disability as a focus of cultural pride and reclamation, and where preference is unknown the guide says to ask. It notes the Deaf and autistic communities' established use of identity-first language.
“Disability justice activists, organizers, and cultural workers understand that able-bodied supremacy has been formed in relation to other systems of domination and exploitation. The histories of white supremacy and ableism are inextricably entwined, created in the context of colonial conquest and capitalist domination.”
Racial Equity Tools situates disability inside a disability justice framework drawn from Sins Invalid, emphasizing that ableism is entangled with white supremacy and other systems of domination, and that all bodies are unique, essential, and shaped simultaneously by ability, race, gender, class, and nation.
Synthesis
Across the corpus, “disability” and “disabled” are accepted terms. The question is never whether to use them, but how. NCDJ, the dedicated disability source, calls them “usually acceptable” while warning that disabled people are not monolithic: avoid the collective “the disabled,” and don’t reference a disability unless it is pertinent to the story. SumOfUs and Sierra Club add the framing layer. Both trace people-first language to the disability justice movement and ask writers to reject a purely medical view of disability, avoid using it metaphorically or as an insult, and never villainize, sentimentalize, or heroize disabled people.
The rule every source converges on is to defer to the person. The guides decline to settle the people-first (“person with a disability”) versus identity-first (“disabled person”) question by fiat. Sierra Club defaults to people-first but notes that some people prefer identity-first and tells writers to ask in all cases. NCDJ records that identity-first is the preferred form in Britain and among many U.S. disability activists, and that the culturally Deaf and autistic communities have always used it; its recommendation is to ask the person or organizational spokesperson. AP’s fallback, NCDJ notes, is people-first when an individual’s preference can’t be determined.
The chronology runs toward identity-first parity. SumOfUs (2016) and Sierra Club (2021) lead with people-first as the safe default; APA (2023) frames identity-first as a reclamation of disability as cultural pride; Racial Equity Tools (2023) situates the word inside a disability justice framework, drawn from Sins Invalid, that treats ableism as entangled with white supremacy and names disabled bodies as powerful “because of,” not despite, their complexity. The dates track a shift in emphasis, not a contradiction: the ask-the-person rule is stable across all of them.
Audience notes
- Journalists and editors. Don’t mention a person’s disability unless it’s pertinent to the story, and avoid the collective “the disabled.” When it is relevant, name the specific condition and ask the person (or an organizational spokesperson) whether they use identity-first or people-first language. Default to people-first only when a preference genuinely can’t be determined.
- Advocates and internal comms. Reject a purely medical framing of disability, and don’t use disability or mental-health words metaphorically — especially as insults. SumOfUs’s caution against narratives that villainize, sentimentalize, or heroize disabled people is the operative test for campaign storytelling.
- Self-identification governs. Identity-first (“disabled person,” “autistic,” “blind”) is the stated preference of many disability-led communities; people-first (“person with a disability”) is many others’. Neither is universally correct — follow the person.
Related terms