Are trigger words political?

This year a lot has happened. Particularly if you live in London, we had so much going on. And the online world is constantly evolving. It got me thinking. 

We live in a society where “trigger”, being “triggered”, and “triggering” are widely used in conversation. But their meaning has changed since its origins in the 1650s.

But are trigger words political? I will try to answer that question. Shall we start at the beginning?

The word “trigger” comes from Dutch trekken, “to pull”. Think mechanical and analogue, you pull a trigger and something fires (source: etymonline.com).

In 1986, “trigger” began to be used as a clinical term in psychology to describe something that causes an intense and usually negative emotional reaction. A trigger could be a word, a sound, a smell, a stimulus that provokes an intense emotional or physiological response linked to past trauma.

The idea of a “trigger warning” come up as a tool of care. It was not about censorship, nor fragility. But about informed consent (and you know I love talking about consent). Basically saying: this content may be difficult, proceed with caution. It was deeply pragmatic, giving people agency and letting survivors engaging with the world without being blindsided by it. 

More and more, therapy lingo has seeped into mainstream. This word “trigger” moved from therapist offices into schools, social media, and everyday conversations. It has increase its awareness. But it has also diluted and weakened its meaning.

Being “triggered” is no longer just a response to genuine trauma, but also to mild discomfort or disagreement. Especially online, where everything gets amplified (and even those who really shouldn’t have followers, can now buy followers or entire social media platforms), the word can end up losing meaning and purpose.

So trigger warnings began to be demanded, rather than offered. And this self-management tool morphed into the expectation that others should not cause any discomfort at all. And this is where it gets messy.

We need to remember, that even thou safety matters, so does freedom of speech. And we should not treat discomfort as harm. That’s not only unsustainable, it undermines the resilience that this trauma-informed practice aim to support.

This weakness allowed right-wing commentators and political as*holes I mean movements to use “trigger warnings” for their own culture wars. Allow them to paint younger generations as overly sensitive, mock conversations about mental health, and frame our inclusivity and considerate language as an attack on free speech (E.g. see what the Trump administration did last year).

A conversation about care and trauma has now been reframed (and even weaponised) as one about censorship and control.

Nothing is black or white. We live in a world made of shades of grey. The real issue is not whether trigger warnings are good or bad. It is about how we use them, and what we expect from them.

Yes, some content can be genuinely distressing. And yes, people should have the information to choose what they engage with. But we cannot outsource responsibility for how we feel, we cannot outsource our mental health to people around us. We can ask for respect, we can set boundaries, but we cannot expect the world to become a perfectly curated, risk-free environment.

As I see it, one’s trigger words should not be someone else’s minefield. With that, I don’t mean dismiss people’s experiences. Instead I want to recognise that our personal sensitivities, however valid, cannot dictate everyone else’s behaviour. If they do, we move from care into control.

Freedom of speech, like any freedom, exists within a social contract. You are free to express yourself, but not at the expense of someone else’s dignity or safety.

Hate speech is not free speech, because it actively harms, marginalises, and discriminates against vulnerable groups. That is why hate speech crosses a line.

Intentionally using triggering language around someone vulnerable is not just careless, it can be harmful. Intentionally using hate speech around a vulnerable group, is not just offensive, it reinforce prejudice, create fear, and contribute to discrimination (and it’s illegal in the UK and many other countries). 

Awareness and education matter in a society that prides itself on being progressive.

Somewhere in the middle I guess. As someone who loves art, I am acutely aware that art often creates discomfort, and that is where it does its best work. That’s why I would never expect art to come with a trigger warning.

So I do believe we can reclaim trigger warnings, and use them as they were intended: a gesture of consideration, not a demand. We can feel the emotional responses without turning every discomfort into trauma.

However, one thing is clear. Hate is speech and trigger words are not the same thing. We can (and should) defend free expression, but never at the expense of discriminated against groups.