Should you say ‘autistic person’ or ‘person with autism’? Here’s how language has changed

Referring to people with mental health conditions, disabilities, or neurodivergence requires respectful, accurate language that doesn't stigmatize. Terminology has changed significantly over the past 45 years to reflect shifting views on disability and neurodivergence. In the 1980s, disability activists advocated for "person-first" language, which emphasized the person over their disability.

However, there has been a recent shift towards "identity-first" language, where the disability or condition is seen as an integral part of the individual. Our new study, the largest of its kind, explores how this language has evolved over time and how preferences vary depending on the condition and whether we are referring to individuals or groups.

We found that identity-first language was dominant in the 1980s but declined in the following decades, reaching a plateau in recent years. Despite advocacy efforts, there is currently no widespread preference for identity-first language. When describing individuals, identity-first expressions have generally been more common, while person-first expressions are equally popular.

For groups, person-first expressions are now more common. These preferences vary among conditions, with some showing consistent support for identity-first language (e.g., autism, dyslexia) and others for person-first language (e.g., anorexia, bipolar disorder, epilepsy). The shift toward identity-first language may reflect the neurodiversity movement's view that certain conditions are inherent and valuable aspects of the person.

However, the choice between identity-first and person-first language is influenced by how a condition is perceived – whether as an identity or an attribute.