This guide will help you think about and understand the language you and other people use to communicate about disability.
Language is complex and always evolving. This guide is not about telling people what they can and can’t say. Instead, it explains why we should avoid certain words and phrases and suggests ways in which small changes in our language can make a big difference to the way we all think and behave.
This guide was shaped by people who draw on care and support and those who work in it.
Introduction
When communicating about disability, it’s always important to check people’s preferences. Some people feel strongly about words and phrases to use and to avoid, and other people don’t really mind.
It’s better to ask than to make assumptions, but don’t let fear about saying the wrong thing prevent conversations. Avoiding the subject can make people feel stigmatised or silenced. Research in 2014 found that two thirds of British people admit that they feel uncomfortable talking to disabled people due to a fear of seeming patronising or saying the wrong thing.
Understanding models of disability
It’s good to understand some of the different models of disability to help us think about the language we use to communicate with and about other people, and how we’d like other people to communicate with and about us.
Medical model of disability
The medical model of disability describes disability as something a person has, like an illness, and something that needs to be prevented, cured, treated, or overcome. This model views disability as a problem located within the person. It focuses on what people can’t do and on ‘fixes’ like medical treatment.
Charity model of disability
The charity model of disability views disabled people as objects of pity who require sympathy, help, and looking after. This model views people as ‘brave’, ‘inspirational’, ‘special’, ‘suffering’ and ‘victims’.
Social model of disability
The social model of disability says that disability is something people experience, and that people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment. Disabling barriers include people’s attitudes (e.g. thinking disabled people can’t do certain things, like work, live on their own, have sex or have children), the physical environment (e.g. steps, narrow doorways), and information and communication (e.g. information not available in accessible formats). Removing these barriers creates equality and means that disabled people have greater choice and control.
Human rights model of disability
The human rights model of disability is based on basic human rights principles. It recognises that disability is a natural part of human diversity, and that physical or mental impairments must not be used as an excuse to deny or restrict people’s rights. This model puts the person at the centre of all conversations and decisions about them. Like the social model, it locates the ‘problem’ outside the person and within society, emphasising the responsibility of the state to remove barriers and ensure full respect for the dignity and human rights of all people.
“The social model of disability sees the individual as a unique person, and the barriers really being about societal barriers. I always give the example of, if we built a building and we put in level access, that doesn’t just work for people with mobility issues, that works for people with prams, and that works for older people.
I think that most of the challenges that people face are socially constructed, so they’re about access, they’re about the way that we might organise society. They’re not about ‘the problem is the individual’. The problem is infrastructure or the problem is the system or the problem is the way that we think about something. The medical model is very much around cure and fixing people.
There are lots of words that just play out because of the medicalisation of health and social care and I think those words don’t support people to have good lives. They actually make it more difficult for people to have good lives.”
Identity through language
It’s also helpful to understand the difference between ‘person-first’ and ‘identity-first’ language.
Person-first language
Person-first language puts the word ‘person’ or ‘people’ before any reference to disability, diagnosis, or health condition. For example ‘people with disabilities’, ‘people who have autism’, ‘people who are deaf’.
The thinking behind this language is to promote the idea that disability is not the defining characteristic of the person. It is seen as a way to emphasise the person, and view the diagnosis, health condition, or disability as only one part of the whole person, describing what the person ‘has’ rather than what the person ‘is’. This language fits with the medical and charity models of disability.
Identity-first language
Identity-first language refers to disability, diagnosis, or health condition first. For example ‘disabled people’, ‘autistic people’, ‘deaf people’.
The thinking behind this language is to recognise that these are defining characteristics of the person and part of their identity, describing who the person ‘is’ rather than what the person ‘has’. This language fits with the social model of disability, as it recognises that people are disabled by external factors.
When talking about disability, it’s important to recognise that the term includes a wide range of experiences and identities. Some people with a learning disability, for example, are often marginalised or misrepresented. Being inclusive means recognising this diversity and ensuring everyone is included, with their wishes and needs respected and valued.
“Ask people how they would like to be referred to. I personally love the fact that I’m autistic and I’ll tell people that I’m autistic and I have ADHD and I have this and that, but some people prefer more person-first language, so they will say ‘I’m a person with autism.’ Ask what that person would like and would prefer.”
Euphemisms
Euphemisms like ‘complex needs’, ‘special needs’, and ‘differently abled’ are often used in relation to disabled people. However, a euphemism is a word or phrase people use to avoid saying something they think is unpleasant or offensive. While people may use these terms because they think they are more positive than the word ‘disabled’, using them implies ‘disabled’ is an insulting word.
Our preferred terms
From speaking to people who draw on care and support, as well as those who work in it, we’ve put together a list of terms we prefer to use when talking about disability. These words reflect a more human approach to care and support, one that respects people as individuals with agency and rights.
Disability
We recognise the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability, which says that a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The Act requires public bodies to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to make things like information, buildings and policies accessible to disabled people.
Disabled people
Some people use the term ‘disabled people’. This is the preferred language of the social model of disability because it emphasises that people are disabled by the world around them. It isn’t a judgement about what people can or can’t do. Instead, it highlights that the ‘problem’ lies with attitudes, policies, practices, and environments around people rather than with the person.
Some people prefer to use the term ‘people with disabilities’ because they think it promotes the idea that disability is only a part of who the person is, not their whole identity. Other people don’t like this. They say it suggests that the ‘problem’ is within the person rather than due to disabling barriers in society.
We use the term ‘disabled people’ rather than ‘people with disabilities’ to keep the focus on changing disabling barriers in society.
We recognise that some people prefer to describe themselves as having a disability, or as a person with a disability. It is not appropriate to challenge the words people want to use to refer to themselves, but it may be appropriate to find some time to communicate with them about the impact of different terms on the way people think and behave.
Learning disabled people, people with a learning disability
We use learning disabled people or people with a learning disability. We don’t use ‘people with learning disabilities’ as people only have one learning disability.
The term learning difficulty should not be used instead of learning disability. A learning difficulty means that a person learns in a different way or at a different pace. Dyslexia and dyscalculia are examples of learning difficulties. A learning disability is a reduced intellectual ability which affects someone for their whole life.
Some people who may be described as learning disabled use the term learning difficulty themselves as a statement of commitment to the social model. In these cases, the term is consciously chosen to challenge medical definitions and focus on barriers in society rather than individual impairments.
Examples
Here are some examples of ways to use our preferred terms:
Do use: Disabled people bring valuable expertise through lived experience.
Avoid using: The disabled bring valuable expertise through lived experience.
Do use: Our workshops are available to learning disabled people.
Avoid using: Our workshops are available to people with special needs.
Do use: We encourage people with a learning disability to apply.
Avoid using: We encourage people with learning disabilities to apply.
“It’s that idea that there is a perfect human, and that we are different to that, and that’s wrong. If you don’t fall into one neat box in the diagnosis, they don’t know what to do with you, and they kind of panic then. But it’s almost like they forget that humans are inherently unique.”
Words and phrases to avoid
This part of the guide explains words and phrases that don’t belong in a more human, relational approach to care and support, where people are recognised as equal citizens and have choice and control over the care and support they draw on to live the life they choose to lead.
Abled, able bodied
These terms suggest that disabled people aren’t able, and also that disability is located in a person’s body, that disability is physical, and that disability is visible. Use ‘not disabled’ or ‘non-disabled’ instead.
Brave, courageous, inspiring
This is charity model language. It’s patronising and suggests that disability is something to ‘beat’ or ‘overcome’.
Complex needs
Disabled people don’t have ‘complex’ needs. They have the same human needs as non-disabled people.
‘Complex needs’ is a euphemism. The term ‘complex’ is used as a blanket term which doesn’t give any detail about the person or the support they need. It also implies disabled people are a problem and need fixing (medical model) rather than focusing on people’s gifts and potential, and on the adjustments and support disabled people need to live their lives (social/human rights model).
Differently abled, physically challenged, challenged
These terms are euphemisms, and suggest there’s a problem with the person (the medical/charity model).
Disorder, deficit
These terms are negative and should be avoided unless they are used to describe a medical diagnosis. They are terms used in the medical model of disability and suggest there is something ‘wrong’ with the person.
Hidden disability
Some people don’t like the term ‘hidden disability’ because it can suggest that the person is hiding their disability. Use non-visible disability or unseen disability instead.
Invisible disability
Some people don’t like the term ‘invisible disability’ because it can imply that the disability doesn’t exist, and that the person is not disabled by the impairment or health condition. Use non-visible disability or unseen disability instead.
Less visible disability
Some people don’t like the term ‘less visible disability’ because it doesn’t include people who have a non-visible health condition or impairment. Use non-visible disability or unseen disability instead.
Non-verbal
The term ‘verbal’ relates to the use of words, so ‘non-verbal’ means not using words to communicate, rather than not using speech to communicate.
Using ‘non-verbal’ in relation to people can suggest people can’t understand words and don’t use any form of words to communicate. This ignores other forms of communication and can mean people are excluded from conversations and decisions about their lives.
Use ‘people who don’t use speech to communicate’ or ‘non-speaking’ in relation to people who don’t use words at all, or who communicate using words but not oral speech (e.g. by writing, typing, signing or using devices or apps).
Use ‘people who don’t use words’ to communicate in relation to people who don’t use words at all.
PWD
PWD is an acronym for ‘people with disabilities’. It’s generally a good idea to avoid acronyms as lots of people don’t know what they mean, or sometimes they have more than one meaning. It’s not appropriate to use ‘PWD’ to describe people as it removes the focus on people as human beings. Use ‘disabled people’ instead.
PWLD
PWLD is an acronym for ‘people with learning disabilities’. It’s generally a good idea to avoid acronyms as lots of people don’t know what they mean, or sometimes they have more than one meaning. It’s not appropriate to use ‘PWLD’ to describe people as it removes the focus on people as human beings. Use ‘people with a learning disability’ or ‘learning disabled people’ instead.
Special needs
Disabled people don’t have ‘special’ needs. They have the same human needs as non-disabled people. Special needs is a euphemism. The term ‘special’ also implies disabled people need ‘special treatment’ (medical model) rather than reasonable adjustments to remove disabling barriers (social model). ‘Special’ is also used as an abusive term e.g. ‘he’s a bit special’.
Suffering from, afflicted with, victim of
This is medical/charity model language which suggests someone’s life is hopeless and evokes pity. Use ‘living with’ instead.
The disabled
This term is dehumanising, which means thinking or communicating about people as if they are lesser human beings. It also groups people together, suggesting everyone in the group is the same, and that the group is separate or different to other people.
Vulnerable
‘Vulnerable’ is an unhelpful term which is often used as a blanket label, with no further detail about who we mean, why we’re suggesting a person is vulnerable and what they’re vulnerable to.
Using the term in relation to disabled people suggests disabled people are weak, helpless and need looking after, rather than equal human beings with equal human rights.
The term blames people as problems, instead of acknowledging that vulnerability is a result of external factors that make people vulnerable.
While it may be valid to describe someone as vulnerable to a specific risk, such as infection, exploitation, or fraud, it’s important to recognise that vulnerability isn’t a trait that should be applied to people as a blanket term.
Wheelchair bound, confined to a wheelchair
These terms are negative and dehumanising and portray people using wheelchairs as victims and objects. Use ‘person who uses a wheelchair’ or ‘wheelchair user’ instead.
Examples
Here are some examples of ways to use our preferred terms instead:
Do use: They don’t use speech to communicate, but express themselves through writing.
Avoid using: They are non-verbal.
Do use: We offer information and advice to disabled people.
Avoid using: We offer information and advice to PWLD.
Do use: He uses a wheelchair and has support to live in his home.
Avoid using: He is wheelchair bound and has support to live in his home.
Do use: Our approach is based on understanding each person’s individual strengths and preferences.
Avoid using: Our approach is designed for people with complex needs.
Do use: Our facilities are designed for everyone.
Avoid using: Our facilities are designed for both disabled and able bodied people.
“I think ‘needs’ can highlight or put the spotlight on deficits or see me as a problem rather than strengths or my potential or capabilities. The alternative for me would be talking about our goals, aspirations but focusing more on the positive potential of uplifting me as an individual.”
“The term complex, what does that mean? Are you inferring I’m difficult because I don’t fit into your system? Are you inferring I have higher support needs so need lots of specialist support? What is it? What does that term actually mean?”
“I don’t have a choice about being in a wheelchair. What do I do when someone says ‘oh you’re so inspirational, if I was in your situation I’d want to die’? That’s how I felt at the beginning, and it’s not a good way to feel, and it’s not helpful for somebody to voice that and say that to you.
And you just think, what do you want me to do? What are you saying? And it’s really quite difficult when it’s said in that way. You just want to live your life. You don’t want to be inspirational or courageous. You just want to live an ordinary life, and get on with your life.”
What people told us
This guide was shaped by people who draw on care and support and those who work in it. Their insights, experiences, and reflections helped us understand how language can empower or exclude, build relationships or create barriers. In this section, you’ll find quotes from the people we spoke to, sharing in their own words how certain words make them feel.
Reclaiming words
Language evolves, and some disabled people are reclaiming the word ‘crip’ (slang for ‘cripple’) as an identity and to talk about people’s rights. For example, the ‘Crip the vote’ online movement aimed to encourage the political participation of disabled people and get politicians to discuss issues relevant to disabled people.
However, there is a huge difference between people using these terms confidently and explicitly to describe themselves, and people using them to describe other people or groups.