#Weeknotes 28 (30 July) — Inclusive language: Person-first vs Identity-first

Conversations around diversity, inclusivity and accessibility have been trending in the last few years and for the right reasons. I love that there’s a raised understanding around the spectrum of people with whom we coexist, each with a diverse set of needs and unique circumstances and living situations. I’d like to think we’re moving towards a more empathetic and kinder world. Slowly, but surely. This is part of a series on the topic of using and understanding inclusive language.

In my recent talk on ‘Research sensitive topics with people in vulnerable situations’, I touched upon the importance of language and getting it right in a considered and respectable manner.

They’re not SMI people but people with severe mental illnesses. Identity matters. We need to respect that and ensure the language we use do not confine people in labels.

Words matter. Whether we intend to or not, our choice of words can have a strong impact on those on the receiving side. They’re not Bipolar people, but people with Bipolar. They are people with severe mental illness (SMI), not SMI people. Focus on the person, not their characteristics.

This is also well recognised as one of the key principles in inclusive language: Put people first and don’t use ableist language. Be mindful the words you use do not victimise individuals.

Hubspot wrote a nice piece on “Inclusivity Is a Design Principle” with some practical dos and don’ts in our communications so that we can be more inclusively mindful

Oregan Health & Science University’s Inclusive Language Guide is a great reference for anyone wishing to learn and apply inclusive language in their work and life.

I came across a great inclusive language guide by OHSU center for diversity and inclusion to help others learn about and use inclusive language. They also mention using People-first language as part of the being kind and affirming principle. But in it, they also added situations where instead of a “person-first” language, an “identity-first” language approach would be more appropriate. I didn’t know this but people on the autism spectrum often call themselves autistic people.

Sometimes a person’s characteristic is a major part of that person’s identity. In which case, using “identity-first” language would be more appropriate and sensible. “Deaf person” would be acceptable in many Deaf communities. The best is to ask how a person prefer to refer to themselves.

George Mason University did a great piece on explaining the difference between ‘Person-first’ and ‘Identity-first’ languages and which is more appropriate for when.

They shared a video that explains the two quite well and included thoughts from people in disability groups. This under 3-minute video is worth a watch!

Here’s a video that explains the nuance of using ‘person-first’ and ‘identity-first’ languages and which is more appropriate for when

I definitely learned something new!

This topic of inclusive language is a really fascinating area and its nuance is beyond what any singular blog can cover. Over the next few weeks, I want to look at the various applications and principles of inclusive language in hopes to develop a deeper understanding in the field while also aiding my endeavours to become a better communicator.