Home / Glossary / Victim
Victim
Also written: Victims, Victim of
trauma-informedself-id-requiredcontested
At a glance
Source-by-source
“Terms avoided/questioned by disability rights activists: … afflicted by … crippled by … suffering from . . . … victim of . . .”
As the earliest source here (2016), SumOfUs reaches "victim" only through the disability frame — grouping "victim of" with "afflicted by" and "suffering from" as passivity language — and never touches the violence-and-trauma debate where "victim" versus "survivor" is genuinely contested. It marks one of the page's two cases, not both.
“AIDS victim [Do not use] Correct: people with AIDS, people living with AIDS”
SEIU's stylebook flags "AIDS victim" as a form not to use, prescribing the person-first "people with AIDS" or "people living with AIDS" instead. The guidance is specific to the AIDS construction rather than every use of "victim."
“These terms carry the assumption that a person with a disability is suffering or has a reduced quality of life. … It is preferable to use neutral language when describing a person who has a disability, simply stating the facts about the nature of the disability.”
NCDJ — the chapter's anchor — groups "victim of" a condition with "afflicted with," "stricken with," and "suffers from" as framings that wrongly assume a disabled person is suffering or has a reduced quality of life. It directs writers to neutral, factual language ("he has muscular dystrophy"), conforming to AP's caution against descriptions that connote pity.
“It includes survivor-affirming language to adopt when framing sexual assault, trauma-informed techniques to use when interviewing Black victims/survivors, and harmful terms to avoid when pitching or writing articles on the subject.”
Color of Change's guide for reporting on sexual violence against Black women and girls uses the paired construction "victims/survivors" throughout and centers survivor-affirming framing — neither rejecting "victim" outright nor defaulting to it, but holding both terms together while prioritizing the survivor's voice.
“Avoid Deficit Framing: Rarely use words like "desperate," "scared," or "victim" without direct attribution from the person themselves.”
WFP USA's dignity-in-storytelling principles caution against applying "victim" (alongside "desperate" and "scared") to a person unless the person used the word about themselves — tying the term's use directly to self-identification.
“Term to avoid: AIDS victim. Suggested alternative: person with AIDS.”
In its term-to-avoid table, APA lists "AIDS victim" as a form to avoid and offers the person-first "person with AIDS" instead, on the same person-first logic it applies across health conditions.
“There is much debate about the terms victim and survivor, especially when used in the context of sexual assault and domestic violence. When possible, journalists should ask sources which terms they prefer.”
The Diversity Style Guide frames "victim" vs. "survivor" as an open debate — citing femifesto's analysis that "victim" can convey that a crime occurred but may imply passivity, while "survivor" conveys agency but can be one-dimensional — and advises asking the person which term they prefer.
Synthesis
“Victim” splits by context, and the corpus reads as two separate cases. In the disability and illness frame, the sources agree on avoid: NCDJ — the chapter’s anchor — groups “victim of” a condition with “afflicted with,” “stricken with,” and “suffers from” as framings that wrongly assume suffering and a reduced quality of life, and SEIU and APA both replace “AIDS victim” with the person-first “person with AIDS.” SumOfUs files “victim of” in its disability-activist avoided column. The objection is consistent: attaching “victim” to a condition reduces a person to passive suffering and invites pity.
In the violence and trauma frame, the picture is contested rather than settled. The Diversity Style Guide calls “victim” versus “survivor” an open debate — “victim” can register that a crime occurred but implies passivity, while “survivor” conveys agency but can flatten a person into a single dimension — and its rule is to ask the person which they prefer. Color of Change holds “victims/survivors” together and centers survivor-affirming framing. WFP USA’s dignity principles say not to apply “victim” to someone unless they used the word about themselves.
What ties both contexts together is that the person, not the writer, owns the label. Where a neutral or agency-respecting alternative fits — “person with cancer,” “survivor,” or simply the facts — the sources lean away from “victim”; where it is the person’s own word, they defer to it. The frames accumulated rather than competed: SumOfUs (2016) and SEIU (2020) approach the word through person-first disability language, and the 2021–2023 guides (NCDJ, Color of Change, WFP USA, APA, DSG) add the trauma-informed and self-identification cautions. This page pairs directly with survivor.
Audience notes
- Journalists and editors. In illness and disability stories, avoid “victim of [a condition]” — state the facts (“she has ALS,” not “ALS victim”). In stories about violence, ask the person whether they use “victim” or “survivor” rather than defaulting to either.
- Advocates and internal comms. “Victim” can re-victimize and strip agency, and many prefer “survivor” — but “survivor” is not universal either. Follow the person’s own word, and use the paired “victim/survivor” only when you can’t ask.
- Self-identification governs in the violence frame. WFP USA and DSG state it directly: use the term a person uses for themselves and don’t impose “victim” without their attribution. The disability-frame sources (NCDJ, SEIU, APA, SumOfUs) reach a compatible place by a different route — person-first alternatives to “victim of [a condition]” rather than an explicit self-id rule.
Related terms