The Conversation
SHOULD you say “autistic person” or “person with autism”?
New Australian research suggests there may be no single right answer, with the language used to describe disability, neurodivergence and mental health continuing to evolve.
For decades, people have been encouraged to put the person before the diagnosis or disability.
Terms such as “person with disability” and “person with autism” became widely adopted from the 1980s, following advocacy that argued people should not be defined by their disability.
But attitudes towards that language are changing.
New research examining 45 years of written English has found preferences vary considerably depending on the condition being discussed and whether the language refers to an individual or a group.
Researchers from the University of Melbourne examined the use of person-first and identity-first language across 15 mental health, disability and other conditions.
The study analysed the Google Books database from 1980 to 2019 and the massive News on the Web collection of newspapers and magazines from 2010 to 2025.
For autism, researchers compared expressions including “person with autism”, “autistic person”, “people with autism” and “autistic people”.
The results suggest the debate is far from settled.
Identity-first language was dominant in the 1980s before steadily declining, with the shift slowing during the 1990s. Researchers found there had been no major overall change in preferences since 2010.
Despite growing advocacy for identity-first terminology, the study found there was currently no widespread preference for it across all of the conditions examined.
The picture changes, however, when individual conditions are considered.
Identity-first language has recently become more common for autism and dyslexia, while person-first terminology has increased for conditions including bipolar disorder, anorexia and obesity.
Across the study, person- first language was consistently more common for conditions including diabetes, epilepsy, anorexia and bipolar disorder.
The way people describe individuals and groups also appears to matter.
When referring to an individual, identity-first expressions have generally been more common, although person-first expressions are now about equally popular.
When talking about groups of people, person-first language has become more common.
The shift towards expressions such as “autistic person” has been particularly influenced by the neurodiversity movement, which argues neurological differences can be inherent and valued aspects of a person’s identity rather than something separate from them.
The researchers said the growing use of identity-first terminology for autism and dyslexia was consistent with that changing understanding.
It represents a significant change from the thinking that drove person-first language several decades ago.
In the 1980s, disability advocates argued expressions such as “disabled person” risked equating an individual with their disability. “Person with disability” instead placed the person’s humanity first, and the approach was subsequently adopted by professional organisations and incorporated into publishing and media guidelines.
More recently, critics of that approach have argued separating a person from their disability can unintentionally suggest the disability is something undesirable or peripheral.
Supporters of identity-first language instead argue conditions such as autism can be fundamental parts of a person’s identity.
Surveys have also found many neurodivergent people prefer identity-first terms.
Ultimately, the research reinforces one of the simplest approaches when speaking or writing about disability, neurodivergence or mental health: listen to how people describe themselves.
There may not be one expression that works for every person, community or condition and the language itself will almost certainly continue to change.
