Put People First When Discussing Child Sexual Abuse

If someone runs, you can call them a runner. If they drive, they’re a driver. And if they vote, they’re a voter. Knowing what to call people who do these things is simple.

But what if a person is someone who has offended sexually—what do you call them then? Apply the label “sex offender” or “juvenile sex offender” to that person and you define them by a single attribute. You label them based on the worst thing they’ve ever done. The term is accurate but damaging to the future rehabilitation of this individual. The stigma and bias that attach to these and similar terms can follow an individual for their entire life.

Source: Orbon Alija/Getty Images

We live in a world where it’s become commonplace to lob labels like “pedo” and “groomer” at people with whom we disagree. As someone who has researched child sexual abuse for more than 30 years, I’m pleased that science is moving away from using stigmatizing labels and toward person-first language to communicate more clearly and respectfully. It’s my hope that others make this change, too.

What does this look like? It looks like using the term “person with a sexual attraction to children” instead of “pedophile” or “sex offender” because it places the person ahead of the attraction and also recognizes that not all people with this attraction will act on it. And it means using “individual who sexually offended” instead of “sex offender,” because it does not wrongfully imply a stable, unmodifiable, and trait-like tendency to engage in future criminal behavior.

Person-first terminology is not intended to minimize the acts that comprise sexual abuse or sexual assault. It is not intended to normalize harmful behaviors. Instead, it is intended to more accurately describe characteristics or behaviors while first recognizing these individuals as people.

This isn't wordplay, it's science

Person-first language separates the person from experiences, behaviors, conditions, or disorders. Its use is consistent with current national guidelines and best practices across medicine. It’s why using person-first language is a foundational practice for participants at Envision, the annual child sexual abuse prevention conference co-hosted by the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse, which I lead, along with Darkness to Light.

Person-first language helps move beyond an overly simple, often inaccurate understanding of people, especially those who have offended sexually. This isn’t wordplay. It’s science. Consider the evidence:

None of us is defined by a single attribute

Applying the same label to a diverse group of people as if they are all the same doesn’t help anyone, and it may actually hurt. Using labels like “sex offender” or “predator” risks promoting misperceptions about sexual offending, like the myth that most child sexual abuse is committed by strangers, when about 90 percent of children who are sexually abused know the person who perpetrated the harm. In addition, research shows that labels can erode the public’s support for needed prevention and treatment efforts as well as obstruct an individual’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Labels are misleading

The chance of reoffending by people convicted of committing sex crimes is slim, yet labels make it seem common.

Some 93 percent of kids under 18 and about 80 percent of adults convicted of sex crimes will not re-offend sexually. Yet, in labeling these individuals as “juvenile sex offenders” or “sex offenders,” we are implying that they are offenders for life and will engage in this behavior repeatedly. In the majority of cases, this is simply untrue.

Labels promote powerful beliefs and policies, which may be untrue and harmful

When researchers evaluated the impact of the “sex offender” label with members of the general public, they found the term strengthened public support for ineffective policies, including sex offender registration, notification, and residence restrictions. In this same study, the “juvenile sex offender” label was even more harmful, enhancing public support for policies that subject youth to public Internet notification and affecting beliefs about youths’ propensity to re-offend as adults.

Alternately, when study participants encountered the same information using neutral descriptive language instead of the labels “sex offender” and “juvenile sex offender,” they were more likely to support treatment options.

Neutral person-first language helps counter stereotypes

Labels are powerful. A recent study found that using offense-based labels such as the term “sex offender” was associated with more negative attitudes toward individuals who have sexually offended when compared to the use of person-first terms like “people who have committed crimes of a sexual nature.” Researchers concluded, “Replacing stigmatising labels with person-first language avoids the inadvertent reinforcement of stereotypes” and “humanises people at the center of our research.”

Sexual Abuse Essential Reads

No More 'Quiet on Set'

Can You Recognize a Rapist? Stranger Safety Strategies

A change that's long overdue

Person-first language has become commonplace in referring to people with medical and psychological conditions. It’s widely accepted to use the term “person with schizophrenia” instead of “schizophrenic” and “person living with HIV or AIDS” instead of “AIDS patient.” Similar change is long overdue in correctional psychology, in other fields, and in the media.

In their guidelines for reducing bias in written language, the American Psychological Association’s Publication Manual tells authors to “respect people’s preferences; call people what they prefer to be called.” They continue, “A label should not be used in any form that is perceived as pejorative; if such a perception is possible you need to find more neutral terms.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.