So perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, but I think the point is that the warnings don't actually work, so if there really is something relevant that needs to be said, I'm not sure what the value add is of having the warnings. It's not like these are dirty jokes, where common sense says that those things don't need to be included in the lecture.

What we are talking about (supposedly) is content that is necessary to be in the lecture. It's necessary for the students to learn it. So do the trigger warnings help or not?

A good example here -- since this often comes up in the context of Universities -- is rape, and specifically rape law[1]. You have a situation where university professors are afraid of covering rape law because it might terrify their law students[2]. From the New Yorker article written by Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen:

"Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress."

So when talking about this issue of "being sensitive" it matters a great deal whether the request is a reasonable one to remove unnecessary material or whether the request is unreasonable. It's not just a question of being considerate without taking into account the reasonableness of the request.

Now there is nothing wrong with being upset at things -- I don't like the sight of blood. But I would never try to be a surgeon, nor would I complain in medical school that the sight of blood traumatized me. Someone with a fear of heights can't go to Pilot school. If I went to medical school, it would be my responsibility to know what I was getting into, just as someone going to law school is responsible for knowing what they are getting into. Otherwise, don't enroll.

This reminds me of the beautiful Rumpole novels by Sir John Mortimer, where the main character is employed as a defense attorney but all his partners are bothered by so many criminals visiting their offices. I mean, there is a line between "please don't joke about polish people" to "please don't mention rape in this law school", and the pro-trigger-warning movement has crossed this line. They cannot reasonably expect to be shielded from these topics in lectures, this material will be on the tests and they need to learn it, and the secondary backup attempt of giving them "trigger warnings" to psychologically prepare them for the trauma has been shown to not work.

[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/17/harvard-law-p...

[2] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-ra...