People-first language or person-first language is the practice of distancing a person from a trait or condition they have by preferring phrases such as "a person with diabetes", "people experiencing homelessness", and "people with substance use disorders" as opposed to identity-first language like "diabetic people", "homeless people", and "substance abusers".

As a form of disability etiquette, the practice is intended to avoid unconsciously stigmatizing or dehumanizing people with chronic illnesses or disabilities, by treating them as a secondary characteristics to their personhood rather than an essential or subsuming component of their identity.

Some organizations have adopted style guidelines preferring or requiring person-first language when writing about disability, though some communities including Deaf people, blind people, and some autism advocates have rejected its usage. APA style recommends using either identity-first or person-first language as appropriate for the community or individual being discussed. Phrases like "disabled person", "Deaf person", and "blind person" are generally accepted and often preferred.

People-first language is a type of linguistic prescription. It aims to avoid perceived and subconscious dehumanization when discussing people with disabilities and is sometimes referred to (for example, by NHS England's style guide) as a type of disability etiquette. People-first language can also be applied to any group that is defined by a condition rather than as a people: for example, "those that are homeless" rather than "the homeless."

Rather than using labels to define individuals with a health issue, people-first language uses terminology that describes individuals as being diagnosed with an illness or disorder. People-first language puts the person before the diagnosis and describes what the person has, not what the person is.

The basic idea is to use a sentence structure that names the person first and the condition second, for example, "people with disabilities" rather than "disabled people" or "disabled," to emphasize that they are people first. Because it is a common practice in English to place an adjective before a noun, the adjective might be replaced with a relative clause, e.g., from "an asthmatic person" to "a person who has asthma."

By using such a sentence structure, the speaker articulates the idea of a disability as a secondary attribute, not a characteristic of a person's identity. (See also: Distancing (psychology).)

Recommendations and explanations to use person-first language date back as early as around 1960. In her classic textbook, Beatrice Wright (1960)[3a] began her rationale for avoiding the dangers of terminological short cuts like "disabled person" by citing studies from the field of semantics that "show that language is not merely an instrument for voicing ideas but that it also plays a role in shaping ideas" (p. 7). She concludes her arguments thus: "Since physique does stimulate value judgments, it is particularly important to use expressions insofar as feasible that separate physical attributes from the total person" (p. 8). Another influential rehabilitation psychologist, Carolyn Vash, who also spoke from the perspective of her experience living with quadriplegia from polio, advanced similar arguments for person-first language in an unpublished address in 1959.