As though her co-optation of a real issue in Internet Social Justice to blame WOC for not being part of the Feminist In-Crowd were not plenty
of Filipovic Fail,http://jillfilipovic.tumblr.com/post/53 ... k-a-spider
Now, I can actually get behind the basic premise that while common triggers, such as rape, violence, self-harm, diet talk, etc., merit a warning, I am not entitled to a trigger warning* on pictures of very fat ugly women, even though I have been abused by one. There aren't that many people who share that same trigger, and "*TRIGGER WARNING* This is what I look like!" would easily sound like body-shaming. I get that.
But is there any *less* diplomatic way she could have phrased that point? She's basically mocking people for not wanting to be surprised with a flashback. Wanting to avoid anxiety (when that anxiety is not directly keeping one safe) is a pretty damn rational desire
. Some people are unrealistic about what kinds of accommodation they are entitled to, is all.
*I do think that when someone is writing for a fairly small audience, it's reasonable (but not obligatory) for them to warn for some more outlandish triggers. It's when someone has a larger audience that attempting to do so results in almost *all* content meriting a trigger warning.