How we talk about disabilityThe StyleBook
Words are how a family decides whether they belong here. This page is the standard we hold ourselves to, in public, so you can hold us to it too.
ON THIs PAGESECTION 01Our standard
Write in a way that preserves dignity, reflects individual preference, communicates clearly, and never reduces a person to a diagnosis, limitation, need, or emotional effect on others.
That is the whole standard. Everything below is how we practice it.
This is not a fixed dictionary. Language changes, and people within the same community may prefer different terms. A person’s own choice of words always comes before our house rule.
Eight principles
01Dignity First
We describe whole human beings with preferences, relationships, interests, and ordinary lives.
02Preference over assumption
We use the language a person or family asks for.
03Clarity over euphemism
The word disability is not negative and needs no awkward substitute.
04Accuracy without reduction
We mention a disability only when it matters to the reader.
05Agency over passivity
We show what people choose, decide, and do, not only what is done for them.
06Specificity over sentiment
We name the actual barrier or support instead of reaching for vague inspiration.
07Respect over emotional effect
We never use a person’s life to manufacture pity, guilt, or inspiration.
08Plain language
Easy to understand, never childish or condescending.
SECTION 02Our voice
Our voice stays recognizable whether we are writing a grant, a text to a family, or a web page. The situation changes the register. It does not change the voice.
| WE ARE | WE ARE NOT |
| Warm. Human, welcoming, emotionally aware. | Sentimental or overly familiar. |
| Respectful. Dignity-centered and preference-aware. | Pitying or patronizing. |
| Clear. Direct, specific, easy to understand. | Vague, jargon-heavy, or academic. |
| Grounded. Honest about what is known and offered. | Inflated, heroic, or self-congratulatory. |
| Hopeful. Focused on possibility and belonging. | Forced positive, or in denial about real barriers. |
| Protective. Careful with privacy, consent, and power. | Speaking for people without permission. |
| Educational. Explains terms and context without scolding. | Moralizing or superior. |
Same voice, different rooms
| WHO WE ARE WRITING FOR | TONE | WHAT WE DO |
| General public | Warm, clear, welcoming | Plain language, one clear idea at a time |
| Educational | Patient, factual | Define terms; explain why wording matters, without shaming |
| Families | Respectful, reassuring | Address the family as a partner; assume no burden |
| A participant | Direct, age-appropriate | Speak to the person, not only to the adult with them |
| Grants and formal writing | Professional, precise | Necessary terms, no impersonal labels or inflated claims |
| Fundraising | Specific, transparent | Explain the opportunity and the use of support, without pity |
| Something goes wrong | Calm, factual, private | Verified facts and next steps; no guessing at motives |
| Celebration | Joyful, specific | Celebrate the person or the experience, not ourselves |
SECTION 03Person-first and identity-first language
Person-first language puts the person before the disability: a child with a disability, a person with an intellectual disability, a person who uses a wheelchair. It is our default for general and formal writing because it keeps the human being, not the diagnosis, as the subject of the sentence.
We did not invent it. It came from people with disabilities themselves. Self-advocates with intellectual disabilities organized under the banner People First in the 1970s, insisting on being seen as people first and labels second. The practice spread during the AIDS epidemic, when advocates pushed to replace “AIDS victim” with “person with AIDS.” Today person-first language is the style used by the CDC and much professional writing.
A person is never a category. Nobody is “an epileptic” or “the disabled.” Someone is a person with epilepsy, and people with disabilities are a group of individuals.
Identity-first language puts the identity first, on purpose: an autistic person, a Deaf person, a disabled person. For many people this is not careless phrasing. It is pride. They experience disability as an inseparable part of who they are and decline to have it held at arm’s length by a preposition. Much of the Deaf community, who capitalize Deaf to signal a culture and a language rather than a deficit, prefers identity-first language. So do many autistic adults and self-advocates. The University of South Carolina’s accessibility office notes that preferences within the autistic community split along these lines.
Neither is universally correct. APA Style calls both “fine choices overall,” and says that “the expressed preference of people with disabilities regarding identification supersedes matters of style.” We hold our default lightly and follow the person’s lead the moment we know it.
Two approaches, side by side
| APPROACH | PERSON-FIRST | IDENTITY-FIRST |
| Form | A person with a disability | A disabled person |
| Puts first | The human being | The identity, claimed with pride |
| Favored by | Many families, the CDC, and much professional writing | Many autistic and Deaf self-advocates |
| How we use it | Our default when no preference is known | Used whenever a person or community prefers it |
The house rule: how we choose, and how we ask
• Default to person-first language when no preference is known.
• Use the individual’s stated preference when writing about a specific person, every time, even when it differs from our default.
• Follow a community’s established preference when credible self-advocacy guidance exists, knowing no community is unanimous.
• Be deliberate and consistent within a single piece. Do not alternate forms for variety.
• Never correct a person who uses identity-first, person-first, or another respectful term for themselves.
• When you can ask, ask.
Asking is not awkward. It is respectful, and it takes one sentence:
“What language do you prefer we use for you and your family?”
The CDC gives the same advice: if you are unsure, ask the person how they would like to be described. People appreciate being asked far more than they mind the question.
SECTION 04Why we retired “special needs”
“Special needs” is everywhere, and the people who use it usually mean well. It feels gentle. But it is a euphemism, and euphemisms imply that the plain word is shameful.
The research points the same way. In a 2016 study in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, Morton Ann Gernsbacher and colleagues asked more than 500 people to rank characters in short vignettes. Characters described as having “special needs” were ranked last more often than characters described as having a disability, a specific disability, or no label at all. The authors found that the phrase carries more negative associations and connotes segregation, and they recommend against using it. APA Style also lists “special needs” among the euphemisms many people with disabilities find patronizing.
The softer phrase did the opposite of what it was meant to do.
Disability is not a bad word.
A child has a disability, or a specific access need. Naming the actual need (a wheelchair-accessible seat, a quieter space, a companion seat) is always clearer and kinder than the vague “special.” The only place the word belongs in our writing is where the law itself uses it, as in “special education,” which is a legal term.
SECTION 05The social model
Underneath our word choices is a way of seeing, and it has a name: the social model of disability.
The older medical model puts the problem inside the person, who is treated as broken and in need of fixing or pity. The social model puts the problem in the environment. A person is disabled less by their body than by a world built without them in mind: stairs with no ramp, a ticket price out of reach, a form that demands proof of hardship, a crowd with no quiet exit.
The person is not the barrier. The barrier is the barrier.
This is our operating theory. We do not fix children. We remove barriers between families and a game they want to attend together. So our language names the barrier, and our work removes it. Instead of writing that a child cannot handle a stadium, we write that long lines and loud entrances can make a stadium hard to enter, and then we work on the entrance.
SECTION 06Words we use, and words we retire
These are editorial defaults, not a substitute for listening to the people being described.
| WE USE | WE RETIRE | WHY |
| People with disabilities | The disabled; handicapped | A broad group is not a label |
| Person with an intellectual disability | The R-word; mentally retarded | That word is outdated and harmful |
| Person with a developmental disability | Developmentally challenged | Direct terms, not euphemisms |
| Autistic person; person with autism | Suffers from autism; afflicted | Autism is not framed as suffering |
| Wheelchair user; uses a wheelchair | Wheelchair-bound; confined | A wheelchair is a tool, not a confinement |
| Person who is blind; person who is Deaf | The blind; deaf-mute; sightless | No collective labels or victim framing |
| Nonspeaking; communicates without speech | Nonverbal, when language exists | People communicate many ways |
| Needs support with… | Low-functioning; high-functioning | Describe the support, not a global label |
| Accessible parking; accessible entrance | Handicapped parking; special entrance | Accessible describes the environment |
| Person without a disability | Normal person; healthy person | Disability is not the opposite of normal |
| Participant; friend; community member | Case; subject; recipient; the needy | People, not institutional categories |
| Experiences barriers; faces barriers | Is limited by their disability | The barrier is usually the environment |
| Has a disability; lives with a disability | Suffers from; afflicted with; victim of | We do not assume suffering |
SECTION 07Writing about people as whole people
A respectful sentence is not made by swapping one word. Structure decides whether a person is shown with dignity and agency.
• Lead with the person’s name, role, interest, or action when the disability is not the subject.
• Mention disability only when it is relevant.
• Include ordinary detail: what the person likes, notices, chooses, and looks forward to.
• Use active voice when it reflects agency, and describe support neutrally.
• Never make a parent, volunteer, donor, or the organization the hero of another person’s life.
Written wrong, written right
| WE AVOID | WE WRITE |
| Despite his disability, he enjoyed the game. | He cheered through the fourth quarter and picked the hat he wanted to keep. |
| The family struggles with a special-needs child. | The family named transportation and sensory access as the main barriers to attending together. |
| She is nonverbal but still has a lot to say. | She communicates through a speech device, facial expressions, and gestures. |
| He overcame his disability to participate. | He participated with the support he requested. |
| She is high functioning. | She communicates verbally, manages her schedule, and asks for support with unfamiliar routes. |
| We gave a deserving family the experience of a lifetime. | The family attended the game together; accessible parking made the day workable. |
| Our team changed lives today. | Our team coordinated tickets, accessible seating, and parking for four families. |
| We serve the differently abled. | We work with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. |
SECTION 08Telling stories with consent & dignity
Stories build connection, and they create a power imbalance: the writer controls what an audience learns about another person. So consent and dignity are editorial requirements, not courtesies. Before any story, photo, or quotation is published, it passes a five-part review.
THE FIVE-PART REVIEW1. Consent. Do we have informed permission for this specific name, image, quotation, and detail?
2. Purpose. Is the story necessary to explain the mission, a barrier, an experience, or an outcome?
3. Agency. Does the person make choices, communicate preferences, or act within the story?
4. Balance. Does the story include more than need, struggle, diagnosis, or dependence?
5. Afterlife. Would the person or family still be comfortable seeing this online years from now?
The test: would we use the same detail, photo, or description if the person were reading the final version beside us? If not, we revise it or we do not publish it.
Four kinds of story are permanently retired: pity stories, hero stories that center us, inspiration stories that treat ordinary participation as extraordinary, and any disclosure of diagnosis or private detail without a reason and consent. The CDC cautions against the same thing, such as praising someone for having “overcome” a disability.
Children and families
Children cannot always anticipate the long-term consequences of public disclosure, so we take extra care. We use “child with a disability” unless the family prefers something else. We never publish a child’s diagnosis, school, treatment, behaviors, or support needs without informed guardian permission and a real reason. We do not describe parents as saints or children as burdens, miracles, or lessons for others. We show a child as a child, with interests, humor, friendships, and routines, and we speak to the child directly whenever appropriate.
Strengths, barriers, and support
Strengths-based writing should be accurate, not artificially positive. Instead of “cannot attend crowded events,” we write “crowded entrances and long waits can make attendance difficult.” Instead of a functioning label, we describe the specific support: “needs one-to-one support in unfamiliar places.” And we do not imply that independence is the only valuable outcome. Interdependence is ordinary human life.
SECTION 09Plain language
Plain language improves access for people with intellectual, cognitive, and learning disabilities, for readers with limited English, and for anyone under stress. It is never the same as childish language. We keep an adult, respectful tone.
• Put the most important message first.
• Use familiar words and define the ones we need.
• Keep each sentence to one main idea.
• Use concrete verbs: apply, call, bring, choose, send.
• Use headings, short paragraphs, and meaningful lists.
• Spell out acronyms on first use, such as intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD).
• Give exact dates, places, and next steps rather than “soon” or “later.”
Written wrong, written right
| LESS ACCESSIBLE | MORE ACCESSIBLE |
| Applicants are required to furnish documentation prior to consideration. | Send the required documents before we review the application. |
| Participants may avail themselves of transportation accommodations. | Transportation support is available. Tell us what you need on the form. |
| Submissions received subsequent to the deadline cannot be processed. | We cannot review applications received after the deadline. |
| Contact the undersigned should clarification be required. | Contact us with questions. |
SECTION 10Before we publish
A few more house rules
• No diagnosis as a noun: a person with epilepsy, not “an epileptic.”
• No disability metaphors as slang: not “blind to the facts,” “lame,” “crazy,” “insane,” or “tone-deaf.”
• Confirm names and pronouns. We never infer a pronoun from appearance, name, or disability.
• Claims are measurable and supportable. We retire “life-changing,” “transformational,” “everyone,” and “always.”
• Restrained emphasis: no all-caps sentences, no strings of exclamation points.
Before we publish
Every piece of writing at JJ’s Friends clears this list:
• We used the person’s stated language preference when known, and defaulted to person-first when it was not.
• We mentioned disability only when it was relevant.
• The person is shown as more than a diagnosis or a need, with agency, choices, and ordinary detail.
• There is no pity, savior, tragedy, or inspiration framing.
• We named the real barrier instead of blaming the person.
• Consent is confirmed for every story, image, and detail.
• The language is accurate, specific, and supportable, and understandable without sounding childish.
• The tone matches the audience, and a person with lived experience would feel respected.
YOUR WORDS, YOUR CALLTell us how you want to be described
If you are a family, a participant, a partner, or a member of the press, tell us the language you prefer. We will use it, every time.
Need this page in another format? ADA accommodations are available on request.
Reviewed October 2026