With the blind community, it varies wildly. The rule of thumb is to say “visually impaired” and use person first language unless asked to do otherwise. It’s a pretty fraught issue for us and blindness is so different for everyone that you really can’t make a sweeping statement about the language we prefer and have it be accurate. I know the Deaf community has more of a culture to it and deafness is a big part of it so that influences how they want to be addressed. For autism, just based on the people I’ve met, you guys seem to prefer being up front and to the point about it. Both groups are very large too. By contrast, people who are blind are a very small, very scattered group and we can be anywhere. Blindness doesn’t really define us and the cultural assumptions that it does causes a lot of problems.

The thing I want christians to stop doing is touching me and demanding to pray for me whether I want them to or not. :D Because of the negative way blind people are portrayed in the Bible, being swarmed by church goers who insist I need divine intervention is frustratingly common.

I think a difference you should bear in mind is that many people in our communities lost their sight later in life or are currently in the process of losing it.

Personally, I prefer identity-first: I was born with my vision impairment, it’s a part of my identity for better or worse. But for a lot of people, vision impairment isn’t “a part of them”, it’s something that’s happening **to** them and they might still be learning to cope with it.

It’s not a stretch to imagine that casually being called a “blind person” would hurt if I was that person. Everyone’s different and I’m just some folks who lost their vision later in life prefer identity-first as well, but point is, it would be a mistake to assume everyone does.

It seems that more blind people prefer that term while educators try to shove person first down our throats.

Opinions vary widely among the blind community (probably among the deaf community, too).

Personally, I prefer "blind person" over "person who is blind." Person-first language, to me, sounds so... "othering." You'd never say "he's a man who is tall" or "she's a woman who is beautiful." If identity-first is OK when it's about a trait that society sees as as positive, then person-first language must be reserved for those of us with "negative" qualities.

I don't want my blindness to be seen or treated by others as a negative thing. There are good things about it and there are bad things about it. No one uses identity-first language to tiptoe around the negatives of being tall (e.g. difficulty finding clothing that fits right) or beautiful (like unwanted attention), so why should they do it in regards to my blindness?

Yeah, I'm not a fan of person first language, either.

Hmmm... I appreciate this sentiment. As an autistic person who is also legally blind, there are definitely issues on the side of the NT and Sighted communities that are frustrating. Totally agree that it should be person first language. I identify as a blind person and have been told many times by sighted people that I shouldn't say that because I can see enough to walk without a cane. Just like I've been told not to claim to be autistic because I can work. We can shout our preferences until we are blue in the face but I feel like the misunderstanding and ignorance goes way deeper than that. Sure would be nice to be seen as a valid individual instead of criteria to meet a label.