I haven’t put down in words my opinion on the person-first/identity-first debate, so I will.
For other people: I defer to the person speaking, if they are a person with the disorder/disability in question. I would not presume to challenge a person who prefers to call hirself a “person with visual impairment,” even if I know the broader community tends to prefer identity-first language. If the person is not currently affected by the disorder/disability in question and I happen to know the commonly-preferred option, I will correct their phrasing if the community strongly swings one way or the other – people with diabetes, for example, tend to strongly prefer person-first language, while Deaf people tend to strongly prefer identity-first.
For me: I have a simple way to decide whether to use person-first or identity first on something: Does/did the thing affect who I am as a person enough that removing it from me now or in the past would significantly change who I am? If the answer is yes, I opt for identity first – thus, I identify as asthmatic and autistic. If the answer is no, I opt for person first – thus I’m also a person with allergies, myopia, astigmatism, and a GI disorder.
Note that, for me, opting for identity first doesn’t necessarily mean I’d turn down a cure if offered: I would not turn down an asthma cure. Nor does opting for person first mean I’d take an offered cure: My parents, who are well off, have offered to pay for Lasik surgery if I want, which would cure my vision issues. I have not taken it. All it means is that I think having the disorder has affected who I am.
That’s how I think about it. I’ll respect how you want to identify – please extend me the same courtesy.