EDIT: Ok, looking through your comment history I am less surprised. You do a disservice to the very real and prevalent instances of sexism when you play the card in situations where it clearly does not apply, like this.
It's not, the person was "triggered" by an artificially manufactured offense. Some people refer to it as outrage porn; the desire to seek even the smallest of possible things to generate anger, outrage, etc. which eventually becomes like an emotional addiction.
You are correct, however it has taken on another definition on the Internet, Tumblr and Twitter being hotspots for its usage. It makes a mockery of those who suffer from PTSD; being "triggered" is not the same as being upset at something, it's far more horrifying and I've got nothing but sympathy for those who have suffered. Also, typically a trigger isn't something specific like a description of something bad that happened, but something more ethereal, like a noise or a smell or a particular memory that only comes up while dreaming. Horrifying condition :(
Another definition? In the spaces where it is used it refers exclusively to PTSD triggers and such. Trigger warnings mostly originated on the Internet - claiming the Internet perverted them is nonsensical.
It's not the same as someone disagreeing, but nobody has said that it is. Why would you think that this is what people mean? Do people seem to be triggered by trivial things? Well, that's how trauma can work. It's not people misconceiving the concept.
A description of something that happened can cause people to relive trauma. Yes, it doesn't work like that for all survivors, but that doesn't invalidate the reality of everyone else. Triggers are specific to individuals and personal.
It is a completely reasonable and utterly inoffensive thing to suggest that people warn about things that might cause certain people to relive trauma.
This is not at all true. For example, in new age communities, "triggered" is used very frequently to mean that someone's personal ego wires have been tripped -- and in fact the reason the word is used is because it's understood that "being triggered" is not that big a deal, it's part of being human, and one may get very upset in the moment but with perspective one sees it's fine.
This is obviously very different from the PTSD-only meaning you are talking about, but I would bet that the new age version of the word has been in use for much longer and by many more people.
So ... I sense some presumption and lack of exposure here, is all I am saying.
"Triggered" has become something of an Internet meme these days (via tumblr). That's what he is referring to. He was using quotes to highlight the irony.
You have the causal chain incorrect. It isn't mocking trauma and abuse sufferers, it's mocking people who equate minor inconveniences with trauma and abuse.
Who are they to assume some particular thing does not cause trauma or flashbacks to it? And how can you tell if these supposed people trivialising it are sincere?
Mocking a concept genuinely helpful for sufferers of trauma simply because of its perceived misuse hurts trauma sufferers and helps nobody.
Agreed, attacking people as sexist for totally benign comments just HURTS women's rights. It's a "boy who cried wolf" scenario, filtering out the B.S. just makes people insensitive to the real issues later.
Read the article, the "plot" of the story is the clerk and the donor commiserated for some time on their shared experiences of the loss of a spouse, which the clerk found rather memorable.
In contrast, when I visit the recycling center, I dump my stuff and GTFO so they likely have no memory of my visit.
