I have ADHD, but I don’t really like saying that. It’s not because of stigma, embarrassment about my diagnosis or fear of others’ opinions. The reason for my hesitance around the phrase “I have ADHD” is because I see ADHD as central to my identity. This is called “identity-first” language. It is a way of understanding neurodiversity that is gaining a lot of traction. In contrast, “person-first” language is still the preferred terminology for many people and organisations. My hope for this article is to introduce these two ways of understanding and speaking about neurodiversity and explore some basic considerations for both individuals and churches.
Person First: Something I Have
The question of identity-first or person-first language has become an important (and often heated) topic of conversation. In my early twenties I worked as a disability support worker, while studying an education degree with a focus on special needs. We would have been given the death glare by our lecturers if we dared say “autistic person” (identity-first) instead of “person with autism” (person-first). The rationale was that those with an autism diagnosis are people first and foremost—their diagnosis doesn’t define them. Saying “person with autism” safeguards the humanity and dignity of the individual by highlighting that the individual is more than just a label.
The words we use matter, and Christian disability organisations such as Jesus Club are doing great work to encourage the wider church to think carefully about their language choice when it comes to speaking about disability. Like many organisations working in the disability sector, Jesus Club have adopted person-first language, preferring phrases like “person with disability” over “disabled person”. However, every individual’s understanding and experience of disability is different, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach, even when it comes to language and terminology. Despite the best of intentions that drive the use of person-first language, for many in the neurodivergent community, person-first language is inaccurate at best and harmful at worst.[1]
Identity First: Something I Am
Identity-first language is preferred by a growing number of people who consider their condition to be an intrinsic part of who they are, a lens through which they experience the world. For many, their diagnosis is an inseparable part of their identity; many even feel a sense of pride and belonging. Adopting identity-first language doesn’t downplay the challenges of neurodiversity, but acknowledges that taking away your condition would be to take away part of what makes you who you are.
I don’t see myself as someone with ADHD, as if it’s an impermanent and removeable part of me. It is not something my body can fight off like a cold. By contrast, I see ADHD as something I am, in the same way that I am a woman, I am a wife, I am a mother, and I am an Australian. It is an inseparable part of what makes me me. Is it a part of me that brings challenges? Absolutely. And there are many therapies, interventions, medications and workarounds available to me to make those challenges less challenging. But my ADHD will persist, informing my thoughts and actions, and shaping how I perceive the world.
Referring to ADHD in an identity-first way is a little clunky. “I am an ADHDer” carries the sentiment of identity-first language but feels awkward to say. But it’s possible to use person-first language while still have an identity-first understanding behind what we’re saying. Of my five children, two are autistic, and my general pattern is to use identity-first language when referring to them. But even when I don’t, I still apply an identity-first understanding to their diagnoses. In practice, this means recognising their areas of difficulty, removing obstacles that make life harder than it needs to be and providing skill-building opportunities to increase their capacity, without trying to cure them or turn them into a neurotypical person.
Which Should You Use?
Although identity-first language is gaining traction, many still prefer person-first language. Both approaches can be motivated by a care and concern for the dignity of the individual. But it is good to know that our choice of words can cause offence. Organisations within the disability sector will often outline on their website which language style they’ve adopted and why. Some disability service providers ask clients their individual preference, knowing it varies from person to person.
We Christians have the opportunity to show love and humility by asking people about their language preference and honouring it. Likewise, we can show grace and gentleness when others use language that doesn’t align with our preference. Perhaps your church could set aside time to think through which language style will be adopted across formal platforms (such as websites and social media), and publish a brief rationale that reflects your thought process.
When it comes to the question of person-first vs. identity-first language, there is no definitive right or wrong. Both hold elements of truth, but neither communicate everything about our identity (as I’ll explore further in a follow-up article). But being thoughtful about language choice is a means of loving others, and keeps the conversation about neurodiversity (and disability more broadly) active and prevalent in our church communities and wider social interactions.
[1] This raises the question of how much overlap there is between neurodiversity and disability. For some, all presentations of neurodiversity fit comfortably within the disability umbrella. For others, the difficulties of ADHD don’t impair daily life enough to cross the threshold into disability. This article primarily addresses terminology with regard to neurodiversity. The broader questions of person-first or identity-first language for physical and mental disability are related yet distinct.
