Trigger warnings are, essentially, forewarnings of content that some people might be sensitive to. A lot of times when we talk about them we get wrapped up in strawman arguments where neither perspective gets their views represented accurately. Ultimately though, I feel like trigger warnings have a strong place in society so long as we recognize their function and use them appropriately. An overuse of them can easily lead to the very things critics say they cause. However, just because they can be overused doesn't mean they don't have a valid use or place.

Now, when I say sensitive, I don't mean they'll simply feel uncomfortable being exposed to the material. I mean that there are people who have suffered experiences in their lives that no one wants to go through and certain topics of conversation can cause immense distress. Where do we put trigger warnings? They are put primarily on discussions of sexual assault or abuse. Sexual assault and abuse can trigger PTSD in the victims. In fact, the US Department of Veterans Affairs reports:

One study that examined PTSD symptoms among women who were raped found that almost all (94 out of 100) women experienced these symptoms during the two weeks immediately following the rape. Nine months later, about 30 out of 100 of the women were still reporting this pattern of symptoms. The National Women's Study reported that almost one of every three all rape victims develop PTSD sometime during their lives.

PTSD isn't a joke. It isn't someone being 'overly sensitive'. It is a serious mental health concern and we should take steps to ensure the minimal aggravation of its symptoms. If you support fireworks controls to protect veterans with PTSD, then you are essentially supporting the concept of trigger warnings.

On a more mundane level, if you would warn a friend not to watch a gory scene in a movie because they don't like gore, then you are providing them a trigger warning. I'm not saying people should be constantly insulated from these materials, but I am arguing that they should receive notice that such exposure will happen so they can prepare for it.

We have to be aware of what material might make people uncomfortable because it challenges their views and what material would make people physically uncomfortable. Challenging ideas, I'd argue, should never have a trigger warning. Material that can make people physically uncomfortable (such as viewing graphic images, hearing about sexual assault, or vivid depictions of abuse) should have warnings. It is better to warn about material that will have no effect than to fail to warn about material that could have a strong effect.

In no way does a trigger warning stifle speech. If anything, it allows us to speak about more topics in more depth by warning people that the material will go more in depth. If someone needs to excuse themselves because they are being triggered, we should show that person compassion instead of scorn.

There is also the responsibility of those being exposed to the material in question. You are not being triggered just because something is offensive. You are not being triggered if you disagree. You are being triggered if the material aggravates mental health problems you have. If you wouldn't talk to a mental health professional because of the issues brought out by the material, then you probably weren't triggered (or are stubborn about what counts as a mental health issue).

I certainly see why people argue against trigger warnings, and their arguments aren't without merit. It certainly can happen where we define 'triggers' so broadly that we end up coddling. However, the opposite extreme also carries negatives. If we avoid trigger warnings completely, then there can be distress inflicted unnecessarily on unsuspecting people.

The truth lies in balance between the two. Enough trigger warnings to avoid harm but not so many that ideas and perspectives don't get challenged.