Trigger warnings

[TheDisillusionedAnarchist]

I was wondering why there are trigger warnings on posts mentioning child deaths.

Are they there at the request of the OP? Or was there some kind of agreement among the bereaved parents of mumsnet that they wanted them? If so okay I guess I missed it.

I have to say if not I find it quite offensive. I find a lot of things 'triggering' on mumsnet not least threads about living babies but I don't get trigger warnings. I've seen them even when the thread title is quite clear. What are they for? Why are they there?

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 .

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.

To be fair this thread has been enlightening to me. I very recently suggested to someone on a Facebook group who had recently lost her child that her feelings were irrational. She was saying that people who had stillbirths and pregnancy losses should stop comparing their loss to hers as hers (at 4 weeks) was far worse. I now feel my response was a silencing one. Think I owe her an apology. Even though I may still think it's irrational

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)

Dropyoursword, surely it only comes across as irrational in a world where child death is covered up and hidden.

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.

You're comparing apples with aeroplanes there.

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.

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 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.

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.

Or=It

Grief competition???? Wow we really are in full on silencing now.

As I have said repeatedly I have no issue with a consensus of bereaved parents asking for trigger warnings on child death threads. If MNHQ replied saying they'd polled bereaved parents and this is what they wanted, I may not agree but it's fine by me. Alternatively I am fine with the idea that a trigger warning can be put on any thread at the request of anyone. What I'm not happy with is inequality.

However MNHQ seem to have clarified the policy is trigger warnings on request. Fine everyone's happy.

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.

I think the point about infant feeding is that it is another part of life that now won't happen for the bereaved parents.

I don't think the current system of applying trigger warnings only to those topics deemed worthy is the right approach. Those who have experienced real trauma will know that many, many things - from the obvious to the mundane - can spark a rush of unwelcome flashbacks or feelings. It is unpredictable and inconsistent.

IMO the only way to show consideration and empathy for all is to use very clear titles and place posts in the appropriate topic area.

I agree going but surely it would be ridiculous for bog standard threads on infant feeding to carry a trigger warning?

I probably didn't make it clear but I don't think any posts should have "trigger warning" plastered on it. A clear title is enough.

We don't want to upset you OP, we're not in the business of upsetting anyone.

To reiterate we look at each report on case-by-case basis,
Hope this helps
Kindest
MNHQ

phequer I completely see where you're coming from and why this has been upsetting; I agree with what you've posted.

Condolences for all who have suffered a loss.

I agree the trauma of losing a child is like no other. On January 1st I removed the mask sustaining my daughter's life, watched her heart rate drop, kissed her, watched her body gasp in its last desperate attempt at life and held her as she died. If we're having a 'grief competition' here I get it.

I have empathy for your experience but where is your empathy for mine? Some days I can't handle a thread on breastfeeding, on 3mo development, on starting solids? If you get a trigger warning why don't I? Are your sensitivities more important.

MNHQ please could you actually clarify your policy. I certainly could never post about my daughter on this site if a trigger warning would be put across the thread.

I have requested a trigger warning on this thread btw for the benefit of those posters it is upsetting.