Disability Language Guide: What to Say and What to Avoid
Top TLDR:
This disability language guide breaks down what to say and what to avoid when communicating about disability in professional and personal settings, including person-first and identity-first frameworks, outdated terms to retire, and context-specific best practices. The single most important rule is to follow the lead of disabled individuals themselves. Start applying these principles today and explore disability etiquette communication training for deeper organizational impact.
Words carry weight. In professional environments, healthcare settings, educational institutions, and everyday conversation, the language we use when talking about disability shapes how disabled people are perceived, treated, and included. It signals whether we see someone as a whole person or as a diagnosis. It reveals whether our organization has done the work of learning — or is still operating on assumptions.
The challenge for most people is not a lack of respect. It is a lack of knowledge. Professionals routinely use terms they believe are polite or even progressive without realizing those terms are outdated, patronizing, or harmful. Others avoid talking about disability altogether because they are paralyzed by the fear of getting it wrong. Neither approach serves anyone well.
This disability language guide is designed to give you a clear, practical, and respectful framework for communicating about disability — what to say, what to avoid, and why the distinction matters. It is not about policing speech. It is about building the kind of awareness that leads to genuine inclusion.
Why Language About Disability Matters
Language does not just describe reality — it constructs it. The words we choose when we talk about disability influence how colleagues perceive a coworker's competence, how patients experience their care, how students feel in a classroom, and how candidates are evaluated during hiring. Research in social psychology consistently demonstrates that labeling affects judgment, and that the framing of disability — as tragedy, limitation, identity, or simply one characteristic among many — has measurable consequences for how disabled individuals are treated.
When an organization uses respectful, informed language about disability, it communicates something powerful: that disabled people are expected, welcome, and valued here. When language is careless or outdated, the opposite message comes through, regardless of intent.
This is why disability language is a foundational element of disability awareness training. Getting language right does not solve everything, but getting it wrong undermines everything else you are trying to build.
Person-First Language: What It Is and When to Use It
Person-first language is a framework that places the individual before the disability in sentence structure. The purpose is to emphasize that a person is not defined by their condition.
Person-first examples:
"A person with a disability" rather than "a disabled person"
"A student with autism" rather than "an autistic student"
"An employee who uses a wheelchair" rather than "a wheelchair-bound employee"
"A person with a mental health condition" rather than "a mentally ill person"
"A child with Down syndrome" rather than "a Down syndrome child"
Person-first language became widely adopted in disability advocacy, healthcare, and legislative contexts during the 1980s and 1990s. The Americans with Disabilities Act uses person-first language throughout. Many professional organizations, government agencies, and healthcare systems default to person-first language in their publications and policies.
Person-first language is generally considered appropriate in professional settings where you do not know individual preferences — company-wide communications, policy documents, training materials, and external-facing content. It is a safe and respectful default.
However, it is not universally preferred, which brings us to the next framework.
Identity-First Language: What It Is and When to Use It
Identity-first language places the disability before the person, treating it as an inherent and valued part of someone's identity rather than something separate that they "happen to have."
Identity-first examples:
"Disabled person" rather than "person with a disability"
"Autistic adult" rather than "adult with autism"
"Deaf individual" rather than "individual with deafness"
"Blind artist" rather than "artist who is blind"
Many members of the disability community — particularly within the Deaf community, the autistic community, and the broader disability rights and disability justice movements — prefer identity-first language. For these individuals and communities, disability is not a secondary characteristic to be minimized. It is a fundamental part of who they are, how they experience the world, and the culture they belong to.
The preference for identity-first language often reflects a political and social stance: disability is not a deficiency. It is a form of human diversity. Asking someone to separate their disability from their identity can feel like asking them to apologize for existing as they are.
The Most Important Rule: Ask and Follow Their Lead
The truth is that there is no single correct answer to the person-first versus identity-first question. Different individuals, different communities, and different contexts call for different approaches. What matters is your willingness to listen, ask, and adapt.
In one-on-one interactions, the best practice is simply to ask: "How do you prefer to be referred to?" or "What language feels right to you?" Then use that language consistently. Do not argue with someone's preference. Do not explain why you think a different term is more appropriate. Their identity, their language.
In organizational communications where individual preferences are unknown, use person-first language as a default while acknowledging that preferences vary. Some organizations include a brief note in their materials stating this principle, which demonstrates both awareness and humility.
This approach aligns with the person-centered philosophy at the heart of effective disability inclusion consulting. When in doubt, center the person — not your assumptions about them.
Terms to Retire: What to Stop Saying
Some terms and phrases about disability have been in common use for so long that many people do not realize they are harmful. Here is a practical reference of language to remove from your professional and personal vocabulary, along with the reasoning behind each.
"Handicapped" — This term is considered outdated by the disability community and most professional organizations. Use "disabled" or "person with a disability" instead. Many parking signs and building codes still use "handicapped," but that reflects slow bureaucratic change, not current best practice.
"Suffers from" or "afflicted with" — These phrases frame disability as inherent suffering. Many disabled people do not experience their disability as suffering. Use "has," "lives with," or "is diagnosed with" instead. For example, "She has epilepsy" rather than "She suffers from epilepsy."
"Confined to a wheelchair" or "wheelchair-bound" — A wheelchair is not a prison. It is a tool that provides mobility and independence. Use "uses a wheelchair" or "is a wheelchair user."
"Special needs" — This term was originally intended to be sensitive, but it has become a euphemism that many disabled people and advocates reject. Disabled people do not have "special" needs — they have human needs and, in some cases, specific access requirements. Use "disabled" or "has a disability" or describe the specific accommodation needed.
"Differently abled" — Another euphemism that, despite good intentions, is widely viewed as patronizing. It implies that the word "disabled" is too negative to say, which reinforces stigma rather than reducing it. "Disabled" is not a bad word.
"The disabled" — Referring to disabled people as a monolithic group ("the disabled," "the blind," "the deaf") strips individuality. Use "disabled people," "blind individuals," or "members of the Deaf community."
"High-functioning" or "low-functioning" — These labels, commonly applied to autistic individuals, reduce a person's complex experience to a single axis of perceived ability. They also tend to mean "how easy you are for non-disabled people to be around." Many autistic self-advocates reject these terms entirely. Describe specific strengths or support needs instead.
"Normal" as the opposite of disabled — Referring to non-disabled people as "normal" implies that disabled people are abnormal. Use "non-disabled" or "typically developing" in clinical contexts.
Understanding why these terms are harmful — not just memorizing a list — is what separates genuine awareness from performative compliance. This is where unconscious bias training plays a critical role, helping professionals recognize the assumptions embedded in their everyday language.
Context-Specific Language Guidance
Different professional settings present unique language considerations. A few key contexts deserve specific attention.
Healthcare settings: Clinical language often defaults to deficit-based framing — "patient suffers from," "subject presents with." While diagnostic terminology has its place in medical records, the language healthcare providers use when speaking with and about patients matters enormously. Training healthcare teams on disability-affirming language directly impacts patient trust, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. Explore DEI training for healthcare organizations for more on this intersection.
Educational settings: Teachers, administrators, and support staff communicate about disability constantly — in IEP meetings, classroom discussions, parent conferences, and school-wide communications. The language modeled by adults in schools shapes how students with and without disabilities understand ability, difference, and belonging. DEI training for educational institutions should always include a disability language component.
Workplace communications: Job postings, internal policies, employee handbooks, and company-wide emails all carry language that signals whether disability is part of the organizational conversation or invisible within it. Inclusive hiring practices training can help ensure that disability-affirming language begins at the very first point of contact with potential employees.
Digital content: Social media posts, website copy, marketing materials, and internal platforms should all reflect disability-affirming language. This includes not just word choice but also the accessibility of the content itself — alt text, captions, readable formatting. Language and accessible technology go hand in hand.
Beyond Words: When Language Meets Action
A disability language guide is a starting point, not a finish line. Language matters because it reflects and reinforces attitudes, but language alone does not create inclusion. If your organization uses perfectly respectful terminology in its policies while failing to provide reasonable accommodations, ignoring disability-related microaggressions, or excluding disabled employees from leadership development opportunities, the language rings hollow.
The goal is congruence — alignment between what you say and what you do. Respectful language should be accompanied by accessible environments, equitable policies, and a culture where disabled people are not just tolerated or accommodated but genuinely valued as contributors, leaders, and community members.
This is the work of building a disability-inclusive culture that goes beyond compliance. Language is the foundation. What you build on it determines whether inclusion is real.
How to Implement This Guide Across Your Organization
Changing language across an organization requires more than distributing a reference sheet. It requires training, reinforcement, and modeling from leadership.
Start by integrating disability language education into your existing DEI training programming. Include it in new employee onboarding. Add a disability language section to your communications style guide. Train managers to use respectful language in performance reviews, team meetings, and accommodation conversations. Invite feedback from disabled employees and community members about how language is experienced within your organization.
Most importantly, treat language learning as ongoing. Disability language evolves as the disability community continues to advocate for its own representation. What was considered respectful ten years ago may no longer be. A commitment to disability-affirming language means a commitment to staying current, staying humble, and staying open to correction.
Kintsugi Consulting, LLC offers trainings and consultation that help organizations move from uncertainty to confidence in their disability-related communication. Led by Rachel Kaplan, MPH, every engagement is grounded in a strengths-based, person-centered approach — because the language we use should reflect the dignity every person already has.
Schedule a consultation to bring disability language training to your team.
Bottom TLDR:
This disability language guide covers what to say and what to avoid, including person-first and identity-first frameworks, outdated terms like "handicapped" and "special needs," and context-specific practices for healthcare, education, and workplace settings. Respectful language is foundational to real inclusion, but it must be paired with action. Reach out to Kintsugi Consulting to bring disability language training into your organization.