Although person-first language is commonly used in many professional settings, this practice has received criticism from self-advocates and scholars who believe that identity-defining features, such as autism, cannot be separated from the individual. Arguments have been made that person-first language may perpetuate stigma by drawing attention to a disability through unconventional language. Increasingly, disability advocates have expressed preferences for identity-first language. We surveyed US autism stakeholders (n = 728) about their usage of and preferences for person-first language and identity-first language. Preference and use of terms varied across stakeholder groups (adults with autism, parents of autistic children, professionals, family members/friends, and a comparison group of people with little to no experience with the autism community). Autistic adults preferred to self-identify using identity-first language (87%); however, a sizable minority of adults with autism prefer to self-identify with person-first language (13%). Professionals were more likely to use, like, and choose person-first language terms, which is consistent with current guidelines for usage in professional settings and prescribed by style guides for written communication. As the language we use shapes our conscious and unconscious perceptions and beliefs of individuals with autism, it is critical to identify the terminology that is preferred by individuals within the community.