A Note on Language

Non-disabled people often aren’t sure about what language to use, and can worry about saying the wrong thing, so the Inklusion team have put together this basic guide.

Disabled people use different terms to describe themselves and it’s important that you respect an individual’s chosen language, first and foremost.

Non-disabled people shouldn’t tell disabled people how to identify, or tell them they’re using the wrong language for their own community. Let disabled people speak for themselves.

Secondly, don’t twist yourself in knots coming up with euphemisms like ‘differently abled’. ‘Disabled’ is not a dirty word – use it. Many disabled people are disabled and proud – it’s usually only non-disabled people (and sometimes disabled people who have internalised society’s rife ableism) who consider it to be negative or shameful.

Identity-first Language vs Person-first Language

Identity-first language (e.g. “disabled person”) puts the emphasis on identification.

Person-first language (e.g. “person with a disability”) puts the emphasis on personhood.

Identity-first language is generally preferred by the disabled community, so identity-first language should be your default when referring to disabled people.

Often the abled argument is “I see the person not the disability”. This isn’t the compliment some people think it is. If someone has to use person-first language to emphasise a disabled person is a person, there’s something very wrong that goes deeper than language. “Not seeing” our disability isn’t useful. Disability is often a huge part of our lives and it’s not shameful, however much society tries to stigmatise us.

“Person with a disability” makes it sound as if disability is entirely about the individual and their ‘impairment’, when this is very much not the case. Wording it this way side-steps and erases society’s impact. The social model of disability shows that society is disabling through the dominance of the medical model, lack of access, stigma, and dominant damaging narratives.

When referring to people with chronic illnesses, it makes sense to say “people with cancer” or “person with M.E.”. However, “person with Autism” makes no sense – they are an “Autistic person”. Autism is not an illness – it is an integral part of who that person is and cannot be separated from the person. Calls to ‘cure’ autism are ableist eugenics. Autism is simply an identification of neurotype. Neurodiversity is a variation in brain and mental activity, in a non-pathological sense.

Personal Preference

Some individuals will tell you they personally prefer person-first language (“person with a disability”), so you of course use that for them. Always use what the individual disabled person prefers.

While they are included in the ‘disabled’ umbrella, some chronically ill people don’t personally identify as disabled. Again, respect individual preference.

Crip

The word ‘crip’ can be contentious, however it’s usually non-disabled people who, in misguided politically-correct paternalism, tell disabled people they shouldn’t be using it. Never tell disabled people what language they should or shouldn’t use. It’s also important that disabled people don’t police fellow disabled people.

‘Crip’ is a reclaimed word. It’s a word that was, and can still be, used as a slur. However, reclaiming the word takes away the power it has as a slur, and heads off any ableism.

‘Crip’ is used in academia – ‘Crip Theory’ has sprung out of disability studies and Queer Theory, but more importantly, it’s used by many disabled people themselves, and even more importantly, it’s used by disabled activists – you just need to look up the hashtags #CripTheVote and #CripLit.

So while there’s still a bit of debate around it, the word ‘crip’ is not inherently offensive – you need to consider the context. Again, if disabled activists are using it, you need to respect that.

Generally, a non-disabled person should be careful about calling a disabled person ‘crip’ unless you know that’s how they identify, you’re their friend and/or have permission. You can of course use it when referring to groups such a ‘Crip Collective’ and movements such as ‘Crip the Vote’.

Ever personally considers ‘crip’ to be similar’ to ‘queer’ and is happy to be called ‘crip’ by anyone. Julie is steadily dismantling internalised ableism and is happy to be identified as ‘crip’ by well-meaning people.

Main Points

When referring to an individual always check what their preference is and always respect that preference. When referring to disabled people in general, always use identity-first language.

Social Model

For simplicity, we use the word ‘disabled’ throughout. This encompasses a wide range of people, including those who are, for instance, deaf, neurodivergent or chronically ill. The definition of ‘disabled’ and the foundation of the guide is based on the social model of disability:

However, it’s important to note that some people with chronic illnesses, for instance, feel the Social Model doesn’t fully encapsulate their experience, as their impairments (e.g. fatigue, chronic pain) mean that they would still be disabled regardless of barriers being removed.

Use of ‘Deaf’

Team Inklusion have had some feedback saying that many hearing-led organisations still use ‘D/deaf’, but Deaf-led organisations prefer ‘Deaf’ or ‘deaf’. Reasons for this include:

Not everyone understands what ‘D/deaf’ means and interpretations can vary. ‘D/deaf’ can create unnecessary divisions between who is 'more' or 'really' deaf, and people who are deaf can still be part of Deaf culture. Also, the distinction depends on English capitalisation to define Deaf people who might not speak or read English.

For this reason, we have chosen to use ‘deaf’ throughout the guide.