Talk:Person-first language

Why is it that all this politically correct stuff seems to come from white women, and no one else. (I say this, being myself a white woman). "native Americans" is not a term used by Indian people, but by white academics, often at the push of white women academics. "Tommy is not blind, tommy sees with a cane and a dog" just sounds so very soccar momish, I gotta say. "there is nothing bad in teh world, just less good".-- 12:47, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Or, to make an Orwell reference, there is no bad, just doubleplusungood. 12:59, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Hey guys... I am hearing impaired, and I have no problems with people saying that I am indeed hearing impaired. I have spent 15 years with the knowledge that it just so happens I cannot hear as well as other people, and I have no reason to be "offended" at somebody recognizing that I am unable to hear as well as "normal" people. 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

"seems to come from white women, and no one else."
bell hooks just called. She's kinda pissed. TheoryOfPractice 12:51, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * She's one of my favorite speakers to listen talk about feminism and racial issues. She's a perfect example of my claim.  She doesn't call herself "colored", or "woman of color" (the new Pc term), she's a "black woman".  (and a hell of one at that).  She doesn't shun from saying she grew up trash poor, or try to use "womyn" or say she is a "Breast bearing human".  She's pretty damned straight forward about the world.  If you get a chance to download her lectures, do it!  :-)-- 13:15, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * point taken. TheoryOfPractice 13:25, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

"latest?"
Dude, this stuff dates from the early 1990s. TheoryOfPractice 12:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Name something newer. 12:54, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Nonetheless, "latest" implies "newer" or "current" to a certain degree: Afghanistan might be the latest country invaded by the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union might be the latest country invaded by Germany. "Graceland" might be the latest album that Paul Simon recorded with Ladysmith Black Mambazo, (at least I think it was...) and "Let it Be" might be the Beatles' latest album of new songs. But they're not, really. TheoryOfPractice 13:29, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It is current, even though it was made a while ago. A more proper analogy might be Iraq as the latest country invaded by the U.S., since U.S. troops are still present there. 13:34, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Another example
I read an article on a feminist blog where the writer concluded that instead of calling non-disabled people normal, she would call them temporarily fully-abled or something along those lines. Is normal really that bad of a word? Dear God. --Paradox (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like "temporarily full-abled". I prefer "normal", as in, what you aren't!  05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the best term to describe 'persons afflicted with the desire to come up with such circumlocutions'? (Contact should be no closer than the reach of 'a implement with a handle, a pole and a square metal business end used for moving earth in the garden')
 * Overthinking pedants, to be honest. There is a line to be drawn between being polite, accepting and accommodating of people's mental and physical abilities, beliefs or sexual orientations and preferences, and artificially enforcing it upon a population who... "don't care" isn't the right word, perhaps "don't think too much about it". Because frankly, I think when you start over thinking and being extra careful, you just end up being a patronising douche and more likely to make an insulting faux pas. It's shit like that which has stopped us thinking "hey, there's a person, I'd like to talk to them, they're interesting" and forced us to think "OH MY GOD ITS A WOMAN/BLACK/GAY/DISABLED I BETTER NOT SAY ANYTHING SEXIST/RACIST/HOMOPHOBIC/WHATEVER!!!!!!!!". Out of those two situations, which do you think is more likely to lead to more sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever? 16:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I do suppose it has a use in making people think. Dawkins uses it in his consciousness raising schtick. I.e., it's not the absurdity of the example or proposed wording that's important (History? What about HERstory you misogynistic prick!!) but the underlying message and thought behind it. 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

'Most people' would accept the 'courtesy and cooperation' arguement - do not use language/behaviour that will intentionally annoy, and work around each other's particular strengths and weaknesses. Or as Marx said -'From each according to his/her/other pronoun's abilities, and to each according to his/her/other pronoun's needs.' And -those who go looking for problems will find racism/sexism/ablebodism/other "issues" wherever they look

Empirical basis?
It seems to me that the concept of person-first language is founded on an assumption about language perception: namely, that words coming at the beginning of a phrase (the adjective X in "X person," or "person" in "person with/of/who has X") are more salient than those coming later, regardless of their grammatical category. I don't know if this has ever been tested empirically, but it should be testable-- give people phrases like "polka-dotted couch" vs "couch with polka dots" and see which aspect of the phrase they remember more clearly, or something like that. Also, what about languages like Spanish in which adjectives normally follow nouns? Are people who speak those languages inherently less biased? 69.109.56.10 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Batshit crazy = person with mental health condition
Seriously? I don't mean to be that guy who is too politically correct or anything, but I was under the impression mental health conditions are a serious problem. And we're linking to a category of people, some of which don't even really have mental health conditions. "But we strongly suspect that they are mentally ill!" That's... belittling those who really do have a mental health condition. Nullahnung (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I kinda cringe every time I see that now. At best it's armchair psychology, at worst it's saying "people we disapprove of are by definition mentally ill."  Either reflects poorly on us.   20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of "X is a person with a mental health condition", it should be "X is a person whose perception of the world and/or reality itself is extremely irrational"? (ETA: We have a page on crankery, maybe tie "Crank"'s definition in instead?) Noir LeSable (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe a surrealist version: "X" is a person who believes a fish"? Actually I like the original version, but only in a solitary room reading to myself. It'd work if the article were intended as more snarky, but, yeah it doesn't really belong as is.MarmotHead (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "person showing symptoms of a cognitive or psychotic disorder", since "batshit crazy" isn't a valid diagnosis and doesn't refer to symptoms of just any mental health issue. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 'Person with a viewpoint at an angle or tangent to current received opinion' (they may be right or merely entertaining); 'person with what is seen as a serious mental health issue' and 'person who tends to invoke colloquial descriptions of mental absurdity.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What about
'Persons with political tendencies'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Persons experiencing poverty" (i.e. Poor People) &mdash; Unsigned, by: 96.48.180.203 / talk

Comparisons
As with 'political correctness' there are some aspects which 'disappear into common usage' ('if they prefer to be called X so what, and use it three times and no problem'), some phrses which is used by activists and others, and some which is used for amusement and straw man aspects. Anna Livia (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A brief commentary from an autistic perspective
In a way I'm not sure which form of language I prefer; on the one hand "person with X" makes it sound as if X is something external to the person rather than a part of who they are, and yet the alternate phrasing of "X person" feels as if the person can be defined primarily in terms of X at the expense of everything else. The emerging concept of "person-centered language", which follows the preferences of whoever is being referred to (when referring to a singular individual) and attempting to finding the most respectful term in a given situation rather than looking for a magic phrase that will never offend anyone (when referring to a group).

Complicating matters further, at least one study exists which suggests that identity-first language can actually amplify prejudice instead of reducing it. While I do not know if this study has been replicated or extended to different sample populations, it is at least illustrative of how the choice between the two forms of address is not as cut-and dry as it seems.--Logos (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)