Spotlight on Inclusive Language

Language is one of the most powerful tools used by occupational therapists and assistance animal professionals. The words we choose influence how individuals perceive themselves, how others perceive them and how organisations develop policies, services and cultures. Respectful, inclusive language promotes dignity, trust, belonging and person-centred practice, whereas careless or outdated language may unintentionally reinforce stereotypes, stigma or discrimination.

Inclusive language is not about political correctness. It is about communicating in ways that demonstrate respect, recognise diversity and acknowledge the inherent dignity of every individual. It also reflects professional standards, ethical practice and contemporary evidence.

Within assistance animal organisations, practitioners communicate with people from diverse cultural backgrounds, age groups, genders, disabilities, religions, family structures and lived experiences. Language should therefore be chosen thoughtfully, recognising that terminology continues to evolve over time.

Importantly, no single set of words will be preferred by every individual. Inclusive practitioners remain flexible, curious and respectful, recognising that the most appropriate language is often the language preferred by the individual themselves.

Why Language Matters

Language shapes attitudes.

The words used within reports, assessments, policies, conversations and public education influence how disability, working animals and diversity are understood by others.

For example, describing someone as:

“confined to a wheelchair”

suggests restriction and dependence.

Describing the same individual as:

“a wheelchair user”

recognises that the wheelchair is a tool that enables participation and independence.

Similarly, describing an assistance animal as:

“just a dog”

minimises the highly trained role the animal performs.

Describing the animal as:

“a working assistance animal”

recognises its professional role and legal status.

Small changes in language can have significant impacts upon dignity, inclusion and public understanding.

Person-First and Identity-First Language

One of the most discussed aspects of inclusive language concerns person-first and identity-first terminology.

Person-First Language

Person-first language places the individual before the disability.

Examples include:

• person with autism;
• person with cerebral palsy;
• person with a disability;
• child with Down syndrome.

This approach developed to emphasise that disability does not define the individual.

Identity-First Language

Identity-first language places identity before the person.

Examples include:

• autistic person;
• Deaf person;
• disabled person.

Many autistic, Deaf and disability communities prefer identity-first language because disability or neurodivergence is viewed as an integral part of identity rather than something separate.

Which Is Correct?

Neither approach is universally correct.

Different communities—and different individuals within those communities—hold different preferences.

The most respectful approach is to:

• ask where appropriate;
• respect individual preferences;
• avoid correcting people about how they describe themselves;
• follow organisational style guides where individual preferences are unknown.

Respecting self-identification is an important aspect of person-centred practice.

Avoiding Deficit-Based Language

Healthcare has traditionally used language that focuses heavily on deficits, impairments and limitations.

Although clinical descriptions remain important, practitioners should avoid unnecessarily negative language when strengths-based alternatives exist.

Instead of:

• suffers from;
• afflicted with;
• victim of;
• abnormal;
• defective;
• low functioning;
• high functioning;
• wheelchair bound;
• confined to a wheelchair.

Consider:

• lives with;
• has;
• experiences;
• disabled person (where preferred);
• wheelchair user;
• requires higher support;
• requires lower support;
• communicates using AAC;
• uses an assistance animal.

Descriptions should remain objective, respectful and clinically accurate.

Avoiding Judgemental Language

Professional documentation should describe observable facts rather than subjective opinions.

For example:

Instead of:

“The client was lazy and non-compliant.”

Write:

“The handler attended two of the five scheduled training sessions and reported difficulty maintaining daily practice because of fatigue and competing caregiving responsibilities.”

Instead of:

“The dog was stubborn.”

Write:

“The dog showed delayed responses during task performance despite repeated cueing.”

Objective language supports better clinical reasoning while reducing bias.

Using Plain Language

Inclusive communication also means writing so people can understand.

Many health professionals unintentionally use technical terminology that may confuse handlers or family members.

For example:

Instead of:

“Your dog demonstrates inconsistent reinforcement history.”

Use:

“Your dog sometimes receives different responses for the same behaviour, making it difficult to learn what is expected.”

Instead of:

“The handler demonstrates reduced executive functioning.”

Use:

“Planning, organising and remembering daily tasks can sometimes be difficult for the handler.”

Clear language improves health literacy, supports informed decision-making and strengthens collaboration.

Respecting Disability Language

Disability language continues to evolve.

Practitioners should avoid assuming that historical terminology remains acceptable.

Examples of respectful contemporary language include:

• disabled person (where preferred);
• person with disability;
• autistic person;
• person with autism;
• person with vision impairment;
• Deaf person;
• person who is blind;
• person with intellectual disability.

Avoid outdated or offensive terms that reinforce stigma.

Similarly, avoid describing people without disability as “normal.”

Instead consider:

• non-disabled person;
• person without disability;
• neurotypical person (where appropriate).

These terms avoid implying that disability represents abnormality.

Inclusive Gender and Sexuality Language

Practitioners should use language that respects people’s gender identity and sexual orientation.

Examples include:

• using a person’s correct name;
• using correct pronouns;
• avoiding assumptions about partners or family structure;
• using inclusive terms such as partner rather than automatically assuming husband or wife;
• avoiding gendered assumptions regarding occupations or caregiving roles.

Where uncertain, politely asking is preferable to making assumptions.

Respecting identity contributes to psychological safety and therapeutic rapport.

Inclusive Cultural Language

Australia is culturally and linguistically diverse.

Practitioners should:

• avoid assumptions about culture;
• avoid stereotyping;
• respect cultural terminology;
• use appropriate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander terminology;
• recognise Country and community where appropriate;
• use interpreters when required;
• avoid expecting individuals to represent an entire cultural group.

Cultural humility involves remaining curious rather than assuming expertise.

Language Around Assistance Animals

The language used to describe working animals and the people who work with them influences how these partnerships are understood by professionals, organisations and the wider community.

Practitioners should use terminology that accurately reflects the legal, professional and functional role of assistance animals while also respecting individual preferences.

Referring to the Person

The term handler is widely accepted within the assistance animal industry because it accurately describes the individual responsible for working with, directing and caring for the assistance animal.

Depending on the context, other terms may also be appropriate, including:

• assistance animal handler;
• client;
• participant;
• individual;
• person;
• assistance animal team member.

When writing reports, practitioners should generally prioritise person-centred language rather than defining someone solely by their disability.

Referring to the Human–Animal Partnership

There are many respectful ways to describe the relationship between an individual and their assistance animal.

Examples include:

• works with an assistance animal;
• works in partnership with an assistance animal;
• is partnered with an assistance animal;
• uses an assistance animal;
• works alongside an assistance animal;
• is supported by an assistance animal;
• benefits from an assistance animal;
• has an assistance animal (where appropriate in general conversation);
• is part of an assistance animal team.

Each phrase carries a slightly different emphasis.

For example, “works with an assistance animal” highlights the active working relationship between the handler and the animal.

“Partnered with an assistance animal” emphasises the collaborative and reciprocal nature of the relationship.

“Uses an assistance animal” accurately reflects the assistance animal as a disability support and may be appropriate in clinical documentation, particularly when discussing function or occupational performance.

No single expression is universally preferred. Practitioners should respect the language preferred by individual handlers while maintaining professional accuracy and consistency.

Language to Avoid

Just as some terminology promotes inclusion and partnership, other language may unintentionally reinforce negative assumptions, diminish autonomy or misrepresent the nature of assistance animal partnerships.

WAFA generally discourages phrases such as:

• reliant on an assistance animal;
• dependent on an assistance animal;
• needs an assistance animal to function;
• cannot cope without their assistance animal;
• the dog does everything for them;
• the dog is their lifeline (unless directly quoting the individual).

These expressions may unintentionally portray the handler as passive, helpless or incapable, despite the fact that successful assistance animal partnerships require considerable knowledge, decision-making, training, responsibility and ongoing management by the handler.

Similarly, practitioners should avoid referring to assistance animals as:

• equipment;
• tools;
• devices;
• “just a pet”;
• therapy dogs (when referring to an assistance animal);
• emotional support animals (unless that is the animal’s actual role).

Although assistance animals function as disability supports, they remain sentient living beings with their own welfare needs and professional responsibilities.

Professional language should recognise both their functional role and their status as living working partners.

Describing the Partnership

Occupational therapists should use language that reinforces the collaborative nature of assistance animal work.

Examples include:

• assistance animal partnership;
• handler–assistance animal partnership;
• handler–dog partnership;
• human–animal partnership;
• assistance animal team;
• handler–dog team;
• working partnership.

These expressions acknowledge that successful outcomes depend upon the combined skills, communication, wellbeing and ongoing participation of both the handler and the assistance animal.

Language Evolves

Inclusive language continues to evolve.

Words that were considered respectful ten years ago may no longer reflect current community preferences.

Professional responsibility therefore includes remaining open to learning, listening to communities with lived experience and adapting language as evidence and societal understanding evolve.

When mistakes occur, practitioners should respond with humility.

A simple acknowledgement, apology where appropriate and willingness to learn is usually more productive than becoming defensive.

Practical Strategies

Occupational therapists can strengthen inclusive communication by:

• asking individuals how they prefer to be described;
• using respectful, objective language;
• avoiding assumptions;
• writing in plain English;
• using strengths-based terminology;
• updating organisational documents regularly;
• reviewing educational materials for accessibility;
• encouraging respectful conversations within teams;
• modelling inclusive language in everyday practice.

Inclusive language should become part of organisational culture rather than an isolated communication technique.

Key Message

Inclusive language demonstrates respect, professionalism and person-centred practice. It recognises that words influence identity, relationships, organisational culture and access to services. Occupational therapists should strive to use language that is respectful, accurate, evidence-informed and responsive to the preferences of the people they serve.

Rather than memorising a list of acceptable words, inclusive practitioners remain curious, adaptable and willing to learn from the diverse communities with whom they work. By choosing language that values dignity, autonomy, partnership and inclusion, assistance animal organisations create environments where every individual and every assistance animal team feels recognised, respected and welcomed.