That is part of what being a safe space means - not eradicating difficult material, but warning for it so that people who may be triggered by something can assess how they want to approach the material. It gives control to the viewer/reader/participant, and lets them decide if they are able to handle them right now.
Too many behave as if wanting to have trigger warnings mean censorship, but it doesn't. Having flashbacks because there's suddenly an explicit rape scene in the film you're watching is no fun, let me tell you. We are not talking about getting your feelings hurt, we are not talking about being offended, we are not talking about pearl-clutching. Being triggered is something that happens when you have a medical diagnosis - most often PTSD - and you can end up reliving, literally relivingand not simply remembering, your initial trauma. It can be very short, a bit of dizziness, shortness of breath and the like, or it can be long and drawn-out, and cause you to lose sense of where and when you are and think you are back at the initial trauma. If trigger warnings can avoid that, I don't see the harm there. You don't want trauma sufferers to have to deal with their trauma in public spaces without adequate counselling nearby, do you? That's what killed that American sniper film guy, for example, when he deliberately triggered a trauma sufferer, so that the latter couldn't "avoid" dealing with his trauma.
And it's not as if we don't have warnings systems for many things already. There's already a film rating system, news anchors already state that some reports may have strong visual imagery etc. For those who have no problems with (sexual) violence, trigger warnings aren't needed, but it's not like trigger warnings would hurt them. But they would help those who need them, so what is the problem?
= new reply since forum marked as read