Diagnoses Don’t Define Kids

The importance of person-first language

I’ve noticed an annoying trend in which caregivers, educators, and even medical professionals use diagnoses as identifying adjectives; e.g. they have an “ADHD kid” or, worse, their kid “is ADHD.” It bugs me, not only because it’s grammatically incorrect—ADHD is not an adjective—but also, more importantly, it’s essentializing. I don’t think diagnoses should be used as sole descriptors of individuals.

This conversation fits into broader debates about person-first versus identity-first language. Many style guides, including APA, require person-first language (e.g. “a child with autism”) in order to emphasize the individual over the diagnosis. However, some communities prefer to use identity-first language (e.g. “autistic child”) to reflect their diagnosis as an integral part of their identity.

I can empathize with the perspective of individuals who prefer identity-first language. Diagnoses can empower individuals and foster a sense of community and belonging; identity-first language supports just that.

However, it is also important to recognize individuals as people with important qualities that extend beyond diagnostic labels. Person-first language reduces stigma and promotes a more holistic view of people.

Keeping in mind that it’s important to be sensitive and flexible in language use and to respect people’s preferences in how they choose to identify, I think adults (parents, teachers, clinicians… whomever) should default to person-first language unless a kid explicitly requests otherwise. But, regardless of what language you use, make sure that you aren’t reducing your kids to their diagnoses, and that you see the kids as the complex, multifaceted people that they are.

***

This is Eleanor’s new favorite!