Disability

Last updated: July 18, 2025

Writing or reporting on disability is not simply a matter of using the right terminology, though that is of course an important part. Like with inclusive language generally, it is as much about guiding principles and conventions as it is about absolute rules.

Even overarching principles and conventions change all the time, as social, political and cultural dimensions of disability evolve. Disability is also not something that is always immediately identifiable, in the sense that there are invisible disabilities, and this can present unique challenges for reporting and communication.

Here are some guiding principles and conventions to think about when writing or reporting on disability.

If a story is about a disabled person and takes up disability as part of its subject matter, ask how that person would like to be referred to. It is always better to ask. If you cannot ask, try to use the language that is most often used in that community. If you are unsure or cannot confirm, use identity-first language as a default, such as “disabled person.” Note, however, that some people prefer “person with a disability” or “people with disabilities.”
Even in stories that are not about disability, be wary of ableism. This is no easy task and calls writers and communicators to constant vigilance in the way they use language. The subtle preference of ability over disability is pervasive in written and spoken language, like in simple words or phrases such as “upstanding” or others highlighted below.
A story in which disability is part of the subject matter need not be framed as inspirational or a heroic narrative of overcoming. A person should not be said to achieve something “despite their disability” or to be “suffering from a disability.” Writers should be wary of imposing their preconceptions on a story about disability and instead attempt to dispassionately understand the narrative or story they are trying to convey.
“Nothing About Us Without Us” has been a rallying cry in the disability rights movement for decades. Too often, disability is written about from the perspective of doctors and other experts, or parents and other caregivers. Disabled people need to be at the center of their own stories.

Terminology and key concepts

The following is a brief list of concepts and terms to be aware of in relation to writing or reporting on disability or related to ableism in everyday language. Note, this section is a starting guide for the community, not an exhaustive list.

Disabled

The word “disabled” is best considered an adjective, not a noun, so as not to define people by their disability or to lump all people with disabilities into one monolithic group.
Never refer to “the disabled.” Note, however, some people with disabilities prefer the terminology “disabled person,” to highlight the way the built environment and social, cultural, political and economic structures function to limit their personhood.

Ableism

The preferencing of ability instead of disability, whether in the sense of the physical world and the built environment, embedded in political and social structures or with respect to language and culture. Ableism is a taken-for-granted orientation, it is pervasive in linguistic choices that may otherwise seem innocent.
Some examples of ableist language that may seem innocent include “kickstart,” “foresight,” “blind spot,” “blind eye,” “upstanding,” “tone deaf,” “lame” and thousands of other commonly used words, metaphors and phrases. What is common to these linguistic choices is that disability is constructed negatively. Instead of saying that traffic was “crippled” on the 401, find a more appropriate phrase.

Normativity

Like ableism, normativity is a pervasive orientation that presumes some opposite that is abnormal.
Do not refer to “normal people” or normal ways of being, even in stories that are not about disability. There are always other words that can be used, such as “regular,” or in some cases (i.e., “normal person”) to simply omit the word.

Invisible disability

Many disabilities are invisible, in the sense that they are not immediately apparent to casual observers. This may include a range of cognitive disabilities, mental illnesses, chronic pain conditions and many other disabilities.
People with invisible disabilities have become accustomed to having the veracity of these disabilities questioned.
A “hierarchy” of disabilities has also been created, in which invisible disabilities are often placed at the bottom.
It is important not to question the reality of a person’s disability experience, and to avoid re-invoking any hierarchy of illness, impairment or disability.

Mental health

Too often, when we write about “wellness,” “mental health,” “resilience” and other states of mind, we are actually subtly demanding these things. We may hope that everyone in our community can experience positive mental health, but this construction can often feel very narrow. This leads to a culture in which people who experience depression, mental illness or have a mental or psychological diagnosis or disability will not seek help, will see their conditions as abnormal when they are not, or will feel shamed or ostracized.

Crippled, handicapped, imbecile, insane, nuts, psycho, etc.

Avoid the casual use of descriptors that draw from terminology identifying people with disabilities. Note, however, that some terminology has been reclaimed by people with disabilities, for example in the “crip pride” movement and in “crip theory.”
Other terminology that we may feel has become detached from disability diagnoses — words like “idiot” or “crazy” for example — have very harmful histories and must be avoided. Just because major news outlets use terms like these (i.e., “Covidiot”) does not make this okay.

Stereotypes

Some common stories invoke disability as something that has to be overcome or compensated for, constructing the disabled person as capable of working harder than others, or having special abilities that counteract their disabilities. These stories invoke disability as a deficit. But they also place unfair demands on disabled people. Other stories construct disabled people as more child-like, innocent or virtuous than other people, and suggest that our response to a disability should be charity, pity or that we should solve disability as a problem. The issue with these angles is that disabled people are denied their own agency and personhood.

Cure and eradication

On university campuses, disability is a topic and focus for research. But many times, the goal of this research can be to “cure” disability or eradicate it. This can have negative consequences for people with disabilities who are alive.

Tokenism

Unfortunately, disability is often simply thrown in when we talk about diversity and equity, and it is noticeable when disability is the last identity group mentioned, or when disability is mentioned but then never properly addressed. Constructing disability as simply a matter of compliance to disability law is similarly reductive.

Plain language

It is important not just that we choose the right words, metaphors and themes in our writing, but that we try to ensure that the writing itself is accessible to a wide readership.
When possible, offer definitions of difficult terms, and use plain language to describe and explain difficult concepts.

Print and digital accessibility

When we publish stories, we need to meet or exceed accessibility standards. This means including rich, informative text descriptions for visual elements, ensuring our text is screen-readable and so on.

Resources

Below are a few resources for writers and communicators that may be helpful on specific use of language related to disability:

The guidebook Inclusive Language in Media: A Canadian Style Guide was produced by a group of colleges and universities and has specific guidance on use of language on disability.
For a substantive list of terminology on language and written style related to disability, see the National Center on Disability and Journalism (NCDJ) style guide, though note this is from an American journalistic point-of-view.
The blog post Coming to Terms with Madness, Illness, and Disabilities of Mind offers a short reading of Margaret Price’s Mad At School focused on terms for “mental disability”.
For more on Canadian Press guidelines and principles on disability, see The Canadian Press Style available through the University of Waterloo library.
For campus communicators interested in a fuller understanding of disability, language, and academia, see University of Waterloo professor Jay Dolmage’s Disability Rhetoric (2014) and Academic Ableism (2017).