When talking about autism, some prefer to say “person with autism,” while others say “autistic person.” The difference may seem subtle, but for many in the autism community, these choices carry weight.
A new study highlights just how divided opinions can be, and why context and personal identity shape preferences in important ways.
A study by Renate Bosman and Jochem Thijs, published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2024), examined how Dutch adults on the autism spectrum view “person-first language” (PFL), such as “person with autism,” compared to “identity-first language” (IFL), such as “autistic person.”
The researchers found that while many participants valued person-first phrasing, there was also strong support for identity-first language—particularly among those who identified closely with the autism community or who were diagnosed later in life.
The study revealed that language preferences were not only personal but tied to broader ideas of identity, belonging, and stigma.
The debate around disability language is longstanding.
Person-first language is often promoted by health agencies and institutions on the grounds that it emphasizes people before their conditions.
In contrast, identity-first language stresses that autism is a core part of identity, not something separate from the person.
Advocates of IFL argue that separating a person from their disability risks reinforcing stigma rather than reducing it.
To explore how these ideas play out in practice, Bosman and Thijs surveyed 215 autistic adults in the Netherlands, with an average age of 30.
Participants answered questions about their language preferences, their sense of belonging to the autism community, and the age at which they were diagnosed.
The study also asked about perceptions of prejudice and the extent to which each language style was seen as reducing stigma or doing justice to autistic identity.
Results showed that participants were not unanimous.
On average, more people leaned toward person-first expressions, which aligns with earlier Dutch research but contrasts with findings from English-speaking countries, where autistic respondents often favor identity-first terms.
Importantly, the researchers found patterns in who preferred what.
Those diagnosed later in life, and those who felt more connected to the autism community, were more likely to favor identity-first language.
These individuals often described autism as inseparable from who they are, a perspective that identity-first phrasing reflects.
By contrast, respondents who preferred person-first language tended to stress that autism is just one part of their identity and does not define them entirely.
Some expressed concern that identity-first language makes autism seem like the most important or only characteristic of a person.
The study also found nuance beyond simple preferences. Many participants said context mattered: how words were used, who was speaking, and the tone of voice all influenced whether they found terms respectful or stigmatizing.
For some, identity-first phrasing felt empowering when used by autistic people themselves but negative when used by others. Others emphasized that respect and intention mattered more than exact wording.
For the general public, the findings underline a key point: there is no single “correct” way to refer to autistic people.
Preferences vary widely, and both person-first and identity-first expressions have supporters and critics within the community.
For policymakers, educators, and professionals, the study suggests that listening to individual preferences is essential. Asking people how they want to be described may be more meaningful than following blanket guidelines.
The research also shows why language matters in everyday life.
Words can shape how people feel about their identity, whether they feel recognized or reduced to a label, and how others perceive them.
In a context where many autistic people report experiencing stigma, sensitivity to these differences can make communication more inclusive.
Like any study, this one has limitations.
The participants were recruited through networks in the Netherlands, and the sample included more women than men, which does not reflect autism’s broader diagnostic distribution.
The study also cannot determine whether preferences change over time or across cultures. Still, by focusing on the Dutch autism community, it broadens a conversation often dominated by English-speaking perspectives.
Ultimately, Bosman and Thijs conclude that both person-first and identity-first language can be appropriate, depending on the individual and context.
The takeaway is not about choosing one form over the other but about recognizing diversity within the autism community itself.
As one participant put it, the most important thing is that the person being spoken about feels comfortable with the words being used.
Citation
Bosman, R., & Thijs, J. (2024). Language preferences in the Dutch autism community: A social psychological approach. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 54(5), 1727-1739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-023-05903-0
