Identify-First Language vs Person-First Language
christopherjbaker opened this issue · 2 comments
Firstly, I just found this project, but I love it so far and I love its goals. I will be using it on all my projects (pending this is resolved).
This is a significant issue with it, however. Overwhelmingly, the disabled communities prefer identity-first language. There are specific subgroups that prefer person-first language, but the general rule is to always use identity-first language unless you know otherwise. To be clear: This rule should remain, it just needs to go the other direction.
I could go into details on why person-first language is harmful, how identity-first was the norm until abled people got uncomfortable, how the history of person-first language is pretty clear in its invalidation of disabled people, how our disabilities are not seprable from us as "person with" implies, and how they affect nearly every aspect of our lives and our experiences of the world. But none of that is relevant, as there is clear consensus from the disabled community that the best way to refer to us is with identity first-language.
These articles from The Body is not an Apology and The Autistic Self Advocacy Network go into more details. When researching a topic like this, however, it is important to make sure you are getting information from the people, and organizations run by the people, who are directly affected by the decision, not from abled people or "advocacy" groups that are run by abled people. If you limit your views to those the term refers to, you will find overwhelming consensus on the matter.
Hi Christopher! Thanks for the kind words! (aside: reading https://wooorm.com/blog/alex/ might be informative!)
I’m not sure I’ve seen concrete evidence that alex should default to identity first language for all groups. I definitely agree with you that many groups are (somewhat?) shifting towards that though.
alex already caters to the preference of groups. Such as for the blind and the autistic (your second source was referenced). Many rules have URLs attached to them that refer to their source. If you have better sources, do share and we can switch! 👍
Your first link… I totally get what it’s saying, but the website seems focussed on selling things, and the article ends with question: “Do you identify as a person with a disability or as a disabled person? What language do you use and why? I’m curious to know other people’s opinions!”. It’s a good post but I don’t think it can be seen as authoritative for a whole community on which terms are preferred?
I think it’s important to add to your small history of PFL/IFL is that the HIV/AIDS communities fought really really hard for this (a quick google finds https://www.ajmc.com/view/contributor-the-importance-of-people-first-language-in-the-hiv-community).
You use “us”. And you use some strong language. It’s clear this is dear to your heart and important for you. I’m glad you’re reaching out and I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying that there are people that feel strongly about the other too (in autistic and blind communities as well), so I don’t want to base alex’ recommendations on what I or one contributor thinks, but rather based on good sources, preferably by the communities, for folks that aren’t in that community.
I did read that and it was informative. Though I hadn't considered making a tool for this, we are on the same page. I constantly adjust things in this manner manually. I have a lot to say here and not the time to refine it into a proper article, so I apologize in advance for the wall of text. Doing my best to make it easy to read. XD
However, I still hold that you are wrong about person-first language. Yes, you should use it for HIV/AIDS communities, but HIV and disabilities affect a person very differently, so I don't think it's relevant to the conversation. I would also like to address the rest of the content on that site: Yes it is a site to sell products, but the article was written by one of the people affected by this decision. As I mentioned initially, it is important to listen to the people who are affected, not necessarily to the organizations that think they know what's right for those people. This is especially true when you are addressing issues of inclusivity, as you have said you are, as these are people who are traditionally and systemically excluded, so the general knowledge (and even that of advocacy groups) doesn't reflect their needs. When listening to individuals, you will find them in all kinds of places, including where they are trying to make a living; nay, especially where they are trying to make a living, since many traditional ways to do that are not open to them.
In any case, I'm not here to argue the merits of one approach over the other in any given situation. I'm here to support the argument that the identity-first language should be the default and person-first language should only be used for specific communities (or individuals, but a tool won't be able to help with that) that have made that preference clear (such as those with HIV, assuming that is still the case). It should be noted that I am a participant in many of these communities, but not a research or advocate, so these references are rather disjointed and from various groups. In my digging, I did find some that advocated for identity-first language, but almost all were from organizations not directly connected to the issue, or from advocacy organizations that did not work with and respect those they worked with, as revealed by a simple google search (Autism Speaks is a good example of this, and has reached a point that much of the community won't even type their name without censoring it, ala A$ instead of AS).
The APA avoids recommending either. (It is also worth noting that if you remove the examples/suggestions in that article, I found 5 uses of identify-first language and no instances of person-first language in the content; while they may avoid expressing a preference, they demonstrate one in this article.)
This series by Roger Collier. Though I did not find a lot about the author, the articles go into a lot of detail on the differences. While he does not state a preference, he does point out that PFL accomplishes little but is very awkward, which leads to its own issues. Also note that the article was written in 2012; this is not a new discussion.
The National Center on Disability and Journalism details lots of related terms (I'd be surprised if this isn't already on your list), and explicitly states that "disabled" is fine, notes that the UK in general and many US advocacies prefer IFL, though the AP says to use PFL when preferences are not known.
The Association on Higher Education and Disability (an organization I am not familiar with) has a clear statement: "to promote concepts of disability informed by social justice, we are adopting identity-first language across all communication, information and materials."
This article by an occupational therapist details the transition of language around disabilities and why it is important to go with the communities towards Identity-first language.
For articles from individuals impacted by the language, I have How person-first language isolates disabled people and A Brief Word On My Preference for Identity-First Language. While I know that one could just as easily find articles from individuals on the other side, these are not merely "strong opinions", these articles demonstrate the problems of, and harm caused by, person-first language.
I think I've provided a pretty clear case for why alex should prefer Identify First Language except for specific communities that have expressed clear desires otherwise. I alse think I have also shown why a rule preference for Person First Language is harmful. While I think that you should advocate for identity-first language as the default and in general cases, your current default to identity-first is harmful to the movement and should be removed at minimum.