What is a trigger?

Today I'm going to talk not so much about trigger warnings (there has been a lot written about it lately, especially since US students started requesting trigger warnings on potentially distressing material taught in class) but about content. Obviously, this isn't saying much: trigger warnings are about content. But I'm not so much keen to discuss what type of content requires trigger warnings or why these warnings are good or bad. As I've said, enough has been done. What I will do is discuss an article by my usually much admired Laurie Penny.

First, a short history on trigger warnings in the internet can be found here. This is important because in order to understand what I am going to say next it is essential to understand where trigger warnings first appeared. It is important to know that trigger warnings have been used predominantly in feminist spaces, which is directly related to what I want to discuss.

Secondly, link to the aforementioned Laurie Penny article that I want to discuss.

Thirdly, it is important for me to say that I agree with the content of the article. I agree with what Laurie Penny is saying and I agree with her emphasis about trigger warnings and context. I agree.

And now, to what bothers me about the article:

"potentially disturbing texts - reading material that might, for example, contain graphic descriptions of violence against women"

"The objection seems to be that since so much classic literature involves violent misogyny, racism and brutality against minorities, whinging leftists should pipe down and read without questioning, analysing or reacting to the canon."

"stern dismissal of "trigger warnings" has become a proxy for dismissing women, people of colour, queer people and trauma survivors as readers"

Firstly, the article seems to imply that only people who have been discriminated or attacked need or benefit from trigger warnings. This is not true (I personally enjoy having trigger warnings, especially when it comes to very graphic violence whether on film/television or books), and as much as I hate it, I feel that it weakens her argument (I hate it because I feel like I'm saying "me too", when the conversation isn't about me, which I hate because I realise I'm using my privilege a little bit here).

Secondly (and to me this one is more serious) it seems to imply that content that requires trigger warnings always has to do with violence or discrimination against minorities. And here I don't feel like I'm just seeing it from a privilege point of view. I happen to think that a trigger is a trigger, and that extreme or graphic violence against a human being might be just as triggering, independently of who the person being subjected to the violence is. I also happen to think (even though this goes into "what trigger warnings should go where") that triggers are different for each person, and something that 99% of people will not consider triggering (the description of a certain set of clothes, for example) may be a trigger for another person. Ignoring that triggers can be everywhere, that nothing is "safe" and that the world isn't safe, is important.

I won't go into my thoughts on whether material in class should come with trigger warnings or not (in essence, I am not against it, though I'm not for it, and I worry that practically except it could mean that students will have an excuse not to study part of the curriculum, and some students might use that to their advantage rather than to protect themselves).

Anyway. Just wanted to say. Enough for today.