Okay let's break this down. Here is what the post actually, literally
starts off with:
It’s the new evil gripping the millennials of this country, coddling all of our college students so they become unquestioning, reactive drones; social justice warriors who put their icky feelings above everything else, whine over perceived microaggressions, and shout down and sue everyone who disagrees with them. They label anything remotely offensive as trigger warnings to avoid ever having to be challenged and have paralyzed universities into compliance. These social justice warrior millennials, in particular the loud liberal contingents of feminists and racial minorities, are no longer being educated in the right way, which involves learning to synthesize and hold equal a broad range of views, including “traumatizing” and offensive words and ideas.
Except, that’s all bullshit.
There is a very distinct cadre of mostly white, mostly male elites who have advanced the anti-political correctness agenda so far that even President Barack Obama has recently chimed in, coming down in firm opposition to PC in a speech in Iowa. But his remarks, and the larger body of essays and articles lashing out against PC culture on campuses, clash deeply with one of the presidential personality traits that many applaud in Obama: they are simply not evidenced by a broad body of facts.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the author isn't stating that trigger warnings aren't being considered at all. Instead, the premise is that complaints of "PC culture" ruining academia are completely unfounded. After all, this is a response to the reporting of The Atlantic and it would be baffling to criticise something they never said.
So, taking that as the original premise of the piece, does it "pivot" away from that on a contradictory tangent? Let's see an excerpt from the author's (admittedly) personal aside that you're possibly referring to:
Take the “trigger warning” as an example. There are still no colleges or universities that mandate trigger warnings as a practice in any field of study. Most cases of them being used have been in teaching sensitive issues of rape, abuse, or assault to classes with young women. The overarching point in “Coddling,” that trigger warnings actually can’t improve mental health, misses the point of the reality of these women. A new study from the Association of American Universities finds that over a fifth of all college women are sexually assaulted at some time in their enrollment. Another 47% have experienced sexual harassment and another 12% have experienced intimate partner violence. This means that any given classroom with any significant amount of women could be composed of up to a third or more of women who are processing rapes, assaults, harassment, or violence. Given the absolutely horrendous state of affairs within colleges (and largely, the country) in handling rape cases and pursuing justice and health for these women, it is likely that most of these survivors have not received or are not receiving the proper therapy and healing in order to be able to process triggering images and words without suffering further damage.
In this case–in likely the most dangerous environment women will ever be subjected to in their lifetimes by the numbers–it is probably a first concern to provide them means of agency to dictate their boundaries and safety in all cases. Trans students and others within the LGBTQ spectrum face similar issues and others at even higher rates, including harassment, physical assault and humiliation, and often suicide. With the monumental failure of the university institution as a whole to fulfill its basic duty to keep these students safe, it smacks of double talk when some agents of those universities constantly bemoan a largely imagined culture of rampant trigger warnings. The two concepts are inextricable.
While the author clearly thinks trigger warnings have value in certain cases, this doesn't contradict the original premise that trigger warnings are far from being widespread or used inappropriately. In fact, the statistics given in the article on misogyny and racism within academia actually serve to disprove the Atlantic's assertion of "PC gone mad" by demonstrating that, in many people's experience, the direct opposite is true. It's a clever, well-rounded bit of reporting that highlights the sad irony of the situation.
But I guess you wouldn't catch that because the blog was only written for an audience that already agrees with it, huh.