Trigger warnings

Everyone feels different. They aren't wrong. I have lost two babies before they were born. I fully accept that it is worse for someone to lose a child at birth or after a few months, weeks, decades. Both are losses. Both leave people hurting. One doesn't take away from the other. People can still have empathy. You can be infertile but still genuinely happy for those who have had a child. I was struggling when mine were small and it was meant to make me feel better that a relative couldn't get pregnant. I was sorry for her but it didn't help me.

Relative now has two children.

Or=It

I'm kind of with OP, at least 'trigger' is used for such a huge range of things on MN that it's not meaningful.

I hate the word "triggering". Like the only content that needs flagging is that which "triggers" a PTSD /mental health crisis response because of historical trauma, but often a narrow experience type of trauma that in fact rather few of us have had. Lots of things are upsetting for other reasons, too. And then as OP points out, different people are triggered sometimes by quite random things. So how do we know what needs flagging as triggering for any individual? I change the news on radio/tv constantly because something upsets me. Not "triggered", just upsetting & I don't need it.

I wish thread titles instead said "upsetting content" / "sad" / "difficult" / "terrible news" / "disturbing" etc.

If the warning wasn't applied by the OP surely a trigger warning implies that the sensitivities of others are more important than the experience of the OP. It smacks of making her experience shameful or implying it's so terrible it needs to be hidden. That is offensive.

It absolutely doesn't imply that. Or simply acts as a warning for those who, at that point in time, are unable to cope with reading something they know they aren't in a place to be able to cope with.

No, it's recognising that there are other people in her position who are not yet able to deal with it as well as she can.

If the warning wasn't applied by the OP surely a trigger warning implies that the sensitivities of others are more important than the experience of the OP. It smacks of making her experience shameful or implying it's so terrible it needs to be hidden. That is offensive.

It really doesn't. In no way is the thread hidden. It allows people to make an informed judgement and not read the thread if they personally find it upsetting.

You're comparing apples with aeroplanes there.

What you don't seem to realise OP is that many of the people asking for the trigger warnings to be added are people in exactly the same situation as you. Bereaved parents.

Is this a grief competition?

(I do realise that some who ask won't be and will just be trying to be helpful)

Clearly that's how you see it, as being silenced. That's not the actual case though. It's not silencing you! I'm sorry, but your argument really does come across as irrational.

I want to support you, OP, but I'm not sure I have the words yet. I've not slept for days. It's catching up with me but I do see your point. I find seeing triggering in the thread title bad enough as I know instantly it's going to be bad stuff and sends me straight back to my bad time .

As for putting trigger warnings on everything about children thriving, it's to be expected that a high proportion of threads on a parenting forum will be about that. In that case, if you can't stand the smell of apples, then you don't walk through the orchard because it's easy enough to avoid.

I understand what you're saying op but finding it hard to verbalise exactly why I agree (ironically as I don't want to upset anyone by saying the wrong thing).

I think, for some people, it's almost insulting that an experience they have been through, needs to carry a "warning" when it's discussed. I remember my grandparent talking (in connection with the Holocaust) how they made people feel uncomfortable when they discussed a particular incident (involving the murder of a child). It was, by its very nature, extremely distressing to hear, but my GP felt strongly that they had suffered it and wanted to tell people, they wanted people to know and they didn't want to feel "silenced". Equally I can see that it would have been cruel for them to inflict distress if people found it hard to hear.

I hope I haven't worded anything insensitively. It's very difficult and I suppose, as ever, MNHQ can only do what the majority of people prefer even if there is a person or minority who doesn't agree with a course of action.

I just wanted to say that I agree with you to a certain extent op to sort of "balance" up the replies. I'm very sorry for your loss, and anyone else who has suffered a similar loss.

I'm sorry for your loss op. I think you are angry rather than annoyed. I'm happy with the job that MNHQ do, therefore, I trust their judgement and ability to work efficiently to decide, when it is relevant to add a trigger warning or not.

OP, I'm sorry for your loss

I'm infertile and was lucky enough to fall pregnant with twins following IVF. I gave birth at 30 weeks but sadly lost one when he was an hour old. I NEED the trigger warnings on threads about child death because I'm still not strong enough to read them. However, while I do understand where you're coming from in terms of other threads I don't expect MNHQ to add trigger warnings to less traumatic issues such as feeding and pregnancy. I see topics pop up under 'Active' about twins, or people falling pregnant at the click of their fingers etc and I just skim past or if I'm unlucky to click on one I quickly come out the thread, take a deep breath and carry on but it doesn't floor me like a thread about child death does. But I'm sorry that for you those threads are so triggering.

And I do agree that thread titles should be more descriptive but don't think there's much MNHQ can do about it

TDA having a trigger warning on a post about child death informs the reader that, if they are in a position where reading about child death is unbearable for them, at that point in time (because not everyone is you and some people are, for example, in the awful situation where they know their child is going to die, soon, but it hasn't happened yet), they can make the choice, now, not to click on that thread, or otherwise draw on whatever resources they may wish to use to make reading and contributing to that thread more bearable for them. Without the trigger warning, if the content of the thread is not immediately obvious from the title (as this being the wonderful world of people having conversations about things, topics do drift, somewhat) then those people are not forewarned and are unable to make that choice.

OK so you feel that you don't need that warning. That's fine. Pay no heed to those 2 words but please do not have the audacity to be offended on behalf of other people who might not be as ready to talk about the death of their child or read about the death of other children as you are.

Please don't feel that way Sugar. I learnt a lot from your thread and have discussed with other people too. You have made a difference for me, and probably countless others too.

If its the thread I'm thinking of OP I thought the word 'trigger' was a bit unnecessary. The title was very clear and l feel as though trigger is being added a lot. MN has changed massively in the years I've been on here. It's probably heading in a way that I'm not 100% glad for and will stop visiting so much when lm off mat leave and not bored.