Identity-First or Person-First Language? Asking About Individual Preferences

“Autistic person” and “person with autism” can both be used respectfully when they match the individual’s preference. The difficult part is often knowing what to say before that preference is clear, or what to do when a school, family member or editor uses something different.

This guide offers a practical way to ask, record a preference and correct wording without making a person defend their identity. It is written for everyday conversations and Canadian community publishing. The sample messages are original editorial suggestions, not quotations from research participants.

What identity-first and person-first mean

Identity-first language places the description before the noun, as in “autistic adult.” Person-first language uses wording such as “adult with autism.” The Public Health Agency of Canada acknowledges both forms and recommends using the language the autistic people in your life ask you to use. See PHAC’s language guidance.

The order of the words does not tell you everything about the speaker’s intentions, but it can matter greatly to the person being described. Instead of explaining why your preferred wording should feel respectful to them, give them an opportunity to tell you what works. You do not need a debate about which description would suit every autistic person.

What research can and cannot tell you

In a study of 198 Australian adults who reported an autism diagnosis, participants rated several expressions positively; “person on the autism spectrum” ranked highest overall. Their explanations reflected different relationships between autism and personal identity. This was a study of that participant group, not a finding that every Australian or Canadian person should use the same term. Read Bury and colleagues’ original study abstract.

A Dutch online study involving 1,026 autistic adults and 286 parents found that most participants in each group preferred person-first wording. The authors highlighted possible language and cultural influences. These findings caution against transporting a preference from one language community into another as a universal rule. Read Buijsman and colleagues’ original study abstract.

Neither survey can answer what the person beside you wants to be called. For practical use, research provides context for asking; the person’s answer guides how you describe them. These two study summaries are limited to the abstracts that were checked, rather than a claimed appraisal of every detail of the full papers.

Ask without making it a test

Choose a private, ordinary moment when the information is relevant. A short question is enough: “When I introduce you, what wording would you like me to use about autism, if any?” Adding “if any” matters because a person may want no reference to autism in that introduction.

If the person prefers written communication, send the question in advance. Offer examples without presenting them as the only acceptable choices: “Some people use autistic, some use person with autism, and some use other wording. You can tell me what you prefer.” Allow an answer later, and avoid treating silence as agreement.

If the person uses communication support, include their usual way of responding. Do not assume that a nearby adult’s wording automatically represents their choice. If you cannot establish a preference, keep that uncertainty explicit and use only the personal information needed for the task.

Separate wording from permission to share

A person may comfortably use “autistic” among friends without wanting it in an employer’s newsletter. Another person may want to name their identity publicly but keep assessment details private. A terminology preference and a disclosure decision are separate questions.

When preparing a profile, specify the audience and format. Say whether the text will be on a public website, a printed handout or a closed group message. Show the exact sentence before publication when possible. If plans change, check again; agreeing to a small event introduction is not automatically agreement to a searchable online biography.

When preferences differ

If two people prefer different wording, use each person’s preference when referring to them individually. A group document may explain that it uses more than one form to reflect its contributors. Consistency in a style guide is useful, but it should not erase the language people deliberately choose for their own accounts.

For general writing without a named individual, establish an editorial convention and explain it briefly. At Everyday Inclusion, general prose often uses identity-first language, while an identifiable contributor’s stated preference takes precedence in their profile and quotations. The convention is an editing choice, not a claim that every autistic reader agrees.

When a clinical report contains a formal diagnostic phrase, distinguish that recorded wording from your own narrative. You can accurately name what the report says without replacing a person’s preferred self-description everywhere else. If a correction to a record is needed, ask the organisation responsible for the record about its process.

Make corrections straightforward

A short response usually works: “Thanks for telling me. I’ll use that wording.” Correct the sentence, and then return to the topic. A long explanation of your good intentions can shift the work back onto the person who asked for a change.

For published material, fix the wording in the relevant places and check previews, captions and biographies as well as the main paragraph. If another organisation controls a copy, tell the person what you can change directly and what you have requested. Do not promise complete removal from every copied version when you cannot verify it.

Common questions