The Negative Polarization of “Person First Language” and “Disability First Language”

According to the CDC, the most respected and politically- correct way to address someone who has a disability is to use “first person language” instead of pointing out the disability. For instance, instead of introducing myself as a hearing-impaired person, I would say I have a hearing impairment. It separates the disability from the person highlighting that this hearing-impaired girl is a human being who deserves the same respect as anyone else.

Despite one's good intentions, discouraging potential discrimination and bullying, I find that “person first language” is not truly reflective of the struggle posed by disabilities. All disabilities no matter how big or small, visible or invisible, they impact every aspect of the person’s life, and cannot be separated from who they are.

There is the risk of individuals not being treated as human beings and viewed as a burden on society. Yet, recognizing the disability first brings better awareness to the disability and the challenges it poses.

These are two opposing extremes on an issue that should be perceived with nuance. Those with a disability should be treated as human beings who happen to have a unique experience and must be fully accepted, disability and all, as to truly include them in society.

In today’s post, I will go over the cons of using each expression of language. Hopefully by the end, we can all have a better discussion regarding the best way of addressing disabled people in society.

Person First Language

Lawrence Cater-Long, a proud disabled advocate once said, “If you see the person not the disability, you’re only getting half the picture.” It is the exact same thing as being color blind, claiming that you don’t see race, therefore you’re not being racist. However, by not acknowledging the disability, you’re not recognizing the problem and the challenges a disabled person may face. The best way to help is to make sure their disabilities are addressed.

The second problem with Person-First language is the implied shame of being disabled associated with it.

As a person who is a hearing-impaired epileptic with a learning disability, there wasn’t a day where I wished I wasn’t disabled. For a long time, I thought my disabilities were a curse, a daily reminder that I was not normal, like everyone else. Through the media such as books or films, we are repeatedly told what the societal norms are. A normal person is someone who can walk, talk, hear, see, over all mentally healthy. Not someone who experiences physical spasms, is unable to walk or see the world around them.

Since I lived among people who were considered “normal” and did not meet others like me, I thought I was an abomination. In fact, if you were to explore disabled history, you would find that society always perceived disabled people as literal abominations.

In Ancient Greek/ Roman societies, they were often tossed and killed as children. And if they were able to live, they became slaves. Flash forward to World War II, in addition to killing and enslaving Jews, Hitler and his Nazis also rounded up disabled people and sent them to concentration camps where they either died or were experimented with in their desire of perfecting the Aryan race. Even in the 1960s, Canada and other countries established asylums where disabled children were sent to live to be “cared for.” However, many of these asylums did not care about the health of their patients. Instead, they were forced to do physical labor and experienced physical, mental and sexual abuse at these institutions. Many children ended up dying and were put in mass graves where their names were never recorded as to provide comfort to their families.

Even though Canada has improved over the past few years in ensuring accommodations, this creation of First-Person Language still petuates this belief that disability is something to be ashamed of. That being said, I understand that some people would prefer to be “fixed” or “cured” as to be “normal.” However, not everyone is able to do so. Plus “Normalcy” is a figment of imagination, it is a concept that changes over time. What might be considered “normal” now, will not be in thirty years.

Disability-First Language

Now I wouldn’t entirely suggest that everyone start using Disability-First Language instead. While it’s the language I use the most to fully accept it as a part of my identity and ensure that I am accommodated, fixating on the disability too much tends to dehumanize the person.

By saying She’s Deaf or Epileptic may spread awareness about her disability, that descriptor is not enough to express who she is as a person. You wouldn’t know her hobbies, what she believes in or her aspirations with just the disability. By reducing her to just her disability, it also creates assumptions about her capabilities.

Those who have a physical disability, they are often spotted and instantly judged. For instance, YouTuber Footless Jo, a young woman who is a leg amputee, went to go skiing with her friends. But instead of helping her, the clerk took one look at her prosthetic leg and instantly decided that she can’t ski.

Those with invisibility also experience the same type of discrimination. While it may take others a while to realize that they have a disability, they are quick to judge and often think of extremes. For instance, whenever I tell people I’m hard of hearing, the first thing they ask me is “you can’t hear me?” and start providing examples to determine what or what I can’t hear. And when they realize that I can hear most stuff, they have the audacity to conclude that I am not deaf. Obviously! That’s why I say I’m hard of hearing or hearing impaired, there is a key difference.

There is also the problem of bullying and harassment. When the “disability” becomes an adjective, there is a chance that others, especially children will start using it to make fun of the person with the disability. For instance, influencer and disability advocate Molly Burke was nicknamed the “blind girl” in school, instead of being called by her own name. Taking a page out of my own life, I wasn’t nicknamed; instead, I was harassed. If you ever watched the animated film Silent Voice, you’ll have a better understanding of what I experienced. As a member of the school band, I played the percussion instruments with other students. However, because I was at the back of the room, and was unable to hear the teacher, I wore my hearing-aids. The problem was that these hearing-aids were old would scream bloody murder as they raised the room volume. So, I asked my percussion mates to not bang on the instruments like a bunch of apes, but did they listen? Nope. There were days they just simply forgot, but most days, especially when I reminded them, they would bang the instruments as loud as they could just to watch me suffer. There was also one instance when they stole one of my hearing aids and I chased them around the room demanding them to give it back. Years later, I have forgiven them. After all, children will be children. However, by using “disability-first language” more instances of bullying and harassment will occur.

So, after viewing both, which one is better? To be honest? Neither are helpful. I know that some people with disabilities would prefer one over the other, it is really up to them on which one they feel the most comfortable in being referred to. It's based on their personal experience with living with a disability that dictates which one they prefer.

However, as someone with a disability, I hate that we have polarized this issue. We should not be thinking about disabilities in such extremes, even worse, have authorities dictate which one is better, especially when the experiences of disabled individuals are unique. Just because I prefer to address myself as a disabled person as to acknowledge my disabilities as a part of my identity, does not mean that everyone else will do the same. I understand that not everyone is able to overcome the sense of shame or the fear of judgement and or prefer others to recognize who they are as a person first.

I just wish that authorities such as the CDC would recognize the nuance instead of the extremes. I’m not sure if a new way of referring to our disabilities is possible due to the grammatical constraints on language. Or that everyone is willing to use both languages interchangeably. However, I hope this article reframes your thoughts on this issue and takes the conversation in a positive direction.