Disability Language

Disability is not a dirty word, but there are other words that are because of the history behind them and what they mean for the community and their history of harm.

Like every diverse community, we don’t always agree on how we should describe ourselves and our experiences – and it comes down to personal preference, that should always be respected. There are many perspectives on the ‘best’ language to use, and while not everyone will agree on everything, there is general agreement on some fundamental principles:

The Term “Disability”

At WDEN, we uphold the view that the term “disability” should not be stigmatised. One way to remove the stigma is by using it, rather than alternatives phrases such as “differently abled” or “diffability.” Given our work, we frequently engage in discussions about disability and use it a lot. However, we acknowledge that some people do not identify with “disability” as it does not resonate with their personal experiences. Some may identify more with a specific community rather than disability as a whole, for example “the deaf community,” often identifying as “Deaf” with a capital “D” to express their identity. In light of these complexities, we strive to create opportunities for people to describe themselves on their own terms and acknowledge we may not always ‘get it right’.

Person-First vs. Identity-First Language

The debate over whether to use person-first or identity-first language continues to evolve. Person-first language traditionally positioned the individual as “a person with a disability,” emphasising the personhood while framing disability as just one facet of their identity. In contrast, identity-first language, exemplified by “disabled person,” foregrounds the disability as an essential aspect of an individual’s identity.

Some proponents of identity-first language argue that it destigmatises disability, viewing it positively. They propose that disability is inseparable from an individual and profoundly influences their thoughts, feelings, actions, and expressions.

So, which approach is correct? The answer largely depends on individual preference and should always be respected. When unsure of someone’s preference, you can ask.

WDEN follows this approach, tailoring language use to the context, opting for either person-first or identity-first language as appropriate. As a disability-founded network, we use both.

Positive Language and Ableism

We avoid phrases such as “suffers from,” which imply constant discomfort, pain, and hopelessness. People with disabilities lead fulfilling lives and often excel. Our language aligns with this reality. For example, we refer to people who use wheelchairs as “wheelchair users” instead of terms like “confined to” or “wheelchair-bound.” Additionally, we avoid using “able-bodied” as it can carry negative implications, choosing instead to refer to those without disabilities as “non-disabled.”

Avoiding Ableist Language

Unfortunately, our vocabulary contains numerous inherently ableist words and phrases, which were not originally designed with disabled people in mind. While many disabled people may use such words casually in their daily lives, we strive to eliminate language that refers to inaccessible activities, opting for alternative expressions. For example, we replace “take a stand” with “take action.”

As an organisation, we abstain from using certain words and phrases due to their highly offensive nature to many individuals with disabilities (e.g. handicap, invalid). It’s essential to respect the preferences of individuals, and these words should never be applied to a disabled person without their explicit consent. Moreover, some members of the disability community have embraced the “reclamation” of offensive words; however, this decision remains a personal one, made by individuals with disabilities for themselves. WDEN stands committed to promoting respectful and inclusive language choices while recognising the evolving discourse surrounding terminology.