I'll be honest, most of your arguments are well thought out and written, but to me the target feels like, and I mean no disrespect, a strawman. I think you're conjuring, via a few cultural critics, the idea of a great mass "pro-trigger-warning movement" which either doesn't exist as a movement, or if it exists has a more reasonable and empathetic argument than you're making it out to have.

OF COURSE someone who wants to be a surgeon shouldn't be if they can't handle the sight of blood. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

To use Jeannie Suk Gerson's conclusion as a stand-in for your argument:

> Instead, though, many students and teachers appear to be absorbing a cultural signal that real and challenging discussion of sexual misconduct is too risky to undertake—and that the risk is of a traumatic injury analogous to sexual assault itself

That is one (relatively qualified) person's opinion, and I don't think she polled the students and teachers regarding the subject before writing this. I would remind that she is a professor of law, not of psychology. She may be misunderstanding the situation. She certainly writes extremely often about the problem despite being a law professor. At best, its a hearsay criticism and take it as you will.