Kant proves three rather different forms of the Categorical Imperative to be logically equivalent, given a grounding in his own theory of thought. He realizes that different forms of the statement will appeal to people with different kinds of motivation. But his own chosen motivations lie close to mathematics and physics, so he chooses to use the "Universal Will" formulation most often. Solutions proceeding from it have a mathematical cleanliness that checks missteps driven by sentimentalization when one applies the other two formulations, which take third-person rather than first-person perspectives.
The 'Means-Ends' form of the Categorical Imperative, "A Being must be treated as an end-in-itself and never as mere means." does just what you ask. Kant elaborates this in terms of 'autonomy', which is an abstract principle including both dignity and value as effects: an autonomous being chooses to exist as more than a mere extension of another, and thus needs his own value to be respected; and an autonomous being needs deference to exercise his autonomy, which is an assertion of his individual dignity. He does consider autonomy to be intuitive to humans.