_edited.jpg)
Talking about Neurodivergence: Person-First vs. Identity-First Language
- Astrid Coxon
- 6 days ago
- 3 min read
How should we talk about neurodivergence?
Elsewhere on my website, blog, and social media, you may have notice I use terms such as “neurodivergent people” and “autistic person”. These are examples of what is called “identity-first language”, where the aspect of identity is placed first, and the person second. The alternative is "person-first language", such as “individual with autism” - the person comes first, and the aspect of their identity second.
Although arguably both “autistic person” and “person with autism” have the same literal meaning, they communicate subtly different things. Language is a powerful tool which we use to express ourselves and aspects of who we are in relation to others and the world around us. When discussing neurodivergence, the words we choose carry weight beyond simple description. They influence identity, self-perception, and acceptance, and communicate our attitudes and values.
What Is Person-First Language?
Person-first language places the individual before their diagnosis or condition (for example, "person with autism" or "person on the autistic spectrum"). It's been widely adopted in medical and educational settings. In using person-first language, the speaker often intends to communicate that a person is not defined solely by their neurodivergence.
Person-first language originated in response to pathology-first language (read more in this open-access commentary) - on the surface, pathology-first language looks not dissimilar from identity-first language (e.g. "autistic person"), but the underlying thinking is different - being autistic is seen as a pathology, something abnormal, something to be addressed or treated. As I go on to explain below, identity-first language isn't used with this inherent belief.
Often, person-first language is pushed as more respectful, centring on the individual above their condition - by trying to separate the person from the experience of neurodivergence, well-meaning people insist that they are not letting the neurodivergent person be “defined” by their neurodivergence.
Unfortunately, this is often informed by a belief, whether conscious or unconscious, that there is something offensive, shameful, or “lesser” about being neurodivergent (hence the compulsion to separate the person from the condition!)
What Is Identity-First Language?
Identity-first language puts the diagnosis or condition before the person. It embraces neurodivergence as an integral part of identity rather than something separate.
"Neurodivergent" isn’t a dirty word - and many neurodivergent advocacy groups push back at things such as ADHD and autism being framed as “conditions” or “disorders”, rather than natural variance in human experience.
Increasingly, neurodivergent people prefer identity-first language as it emphasises their neurodivergence as an integral part of their identity, rather than an add-on. Much like identifiers such as “Muslim”, “British”, “bi-lingual” or “gay”, being neurodivergent is an intrinsic part of a neurodivergent person’s identity - it shapes how they experience the world, process information, interact with others, and understand themselves. They argue that person-first language isn’t more respectful, as it effectively separates a person from a key part of who they are.
Why People Use Identity-First Language
To acknowledge neurodivergence as a core part of identity - it isn't an add on, it's a core part of who I am, how I think, and how I experience and process the world
To reject the idea that neurodivergence is negative or separate from our selves
To foster pride and community among neurodivergent individuals
Identity-first language is common in advocacy and self-advocacy circles. It supports the idea that neurodivergence is a natural variation of human experience, not a flaw to be hidden or distanced from.
Why This Matters
Language is more than words. It shapes how people feel about themselves and impacts how society treats them. Choosing respectful language supports inclusion and acceptance. It helps move conversations about neurodivergence beyond stereotypes and stigma.
You can probably tell by what I've written here that I personally prefer identity-first language - but that's what it is: a personal preference. I don't speak for the entire neurodivergent community, and opinions about neurodiversity-related terminology in general are very much divided (see this recent article for more!)
So which is best, person-first or identity-first? The best option is to ask the person concerned what they would prefer!
Comments