When people think of inclusive language they usually refer to gender-inclusive language, but it also encompasses other under-represented groups (be they race, gender, or other) to make everyone feel safe and welcome. Using inclusive language is about avoiding words or phrases that spread prejudice against disadvantaged groups of people.

First, we must concede that language is biased. We don’t always notice this bias but it cements ideas in our head of the words we use. Clear examples are the multiple languages with grammatical genders for nouns that are a nightmare for English-native speakers. My husband loves this example:

“The word ‘bridge’ is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish. Sure enough, German speakers described bridges as beautiful, elegant, fragile, pretty, and slender, while Spanish speakers said they were big, dangerous, strong, sturdy, and towering.

(Jackson, 2012)

Many terms referring to disabilities have negative connotations. When speaking about a group you’re not a part of, always research and ask people from those groups about their experiences. As a rule of thumb with inclusive language:

“Try not to present the privileged, tech-savvy, wealthy, able-bodied, white, cisgendered, anglo-centric male experience as ‘standard’ and everything else as “other” or ‘diverse.’”

(Dunn, 2018)

Inclusive language, as language in general, is constantly evolving. What may have been acceptable in the past is now rejected for the sake of “political correctness”, and that is because we are now aware of the disproportionate inequality that affects people with disabilities. Seemly innocuous terms and expressions can be plain insulting (and usually condescending), and I’m glad we now have the tools to avoid excluding people.

That’s enough for an intro on inclusive language, which is very extensive. Today we’re focusing on language that excludes people based on ability.

Common use of ableist language

We unknowingly use ableist expressions on the regular.

“The phrase ‘fall on deaf ears’, for example, both perpetuates stereotypes and simultaneously obscures the reality of the situation it describes. Being deaf is an involuntary state, whereas hearing people who let pleas ‘fall on deaf ears’ are making a conscious choice to ignore those requests. Labelling them ‘deaf’ frames them as passive, rather than people actively responsible for their own decisions.”

(Novi, 2021)

Some phrases/words to avoid: Blind spot, blind to the facts, turn a blind eye, blindsided; lame; spastic, spaz; tone deaf. (For explanations and alternatives, check the resources at the end.)

Another example is a tweet I found not too long ago asking for recs of books with disabled MCs and many authors mentioned their protagonists to be “confined to a wheelchair”. Although I believe their inclusion of disability in their books to be well-intentioned, the phrase is insensitive. We should update and adapt our language, and leave behind frequently used expressions to show people basic respect. We can get out of our way to take other people into consideration.

“Just as people have stopped using certain words that have been racist, homophobic, or sexist, we have the opportunity to stop using words that stigmatize and dehumanize people.”

(Morales, 2022)

Person-first vs. identity-first

It’s usually safe to default to person-first language, although it may vary depending on the language you’re using or who you are referring to. Both styles are designed to respectfully refer to disabled people, but it’s more nuanced than just picking the “correct” form.

“Person-first language (e.g., “person with a disability”) is largely considered the default or most respectful terminology to use, as it puts the person first before their disability; it is a way to separate someone’s diagnosis from their personhood. (…)

Identity-first language was born from the disability pride movement, which positions that disability is nothing to be ashamed of. Disabled people who prefer identity-first language often think that person-first language furthers the notion that having a disability is shameful”

(Hawley, 2020)

Here are a couple of examples from the American Psychological Association:

How do I know which one to use?

As I already mentioned before: Ask. You can look for guidance from advocacy groups, but when referring to a particular person, always consider their personal preference in terms of person-first or identity-first style. Remember, no group is a monolith.

Is there a hard and fast rule I can follow?

You can’t skip my original advice, always do your research and listen to the people who are impacted. BUT, besides steering clear of obvious slurs, avoid terms that are patronizing or imply restriction.