If literature does not contain at least the potential to "trigger", then what is it really about?

That is, if a piece of literature contains nothing offensive, then what does it do? Is it really literature?

"Trigger" is a broad term that could mean many things. I think that if we wanted to we could find triggers for someone out there in many if not most or all classic texts. A trigger can be related to a rape, an abuse, a death, signficant trauma, emotional abuse, systemized oppression, etc - and many people do not use "trigger" to mean, as it was probably originally meant, that "Experiencing this can be destabilizing to my mental health to the extent that I may have a breakdown or other significant, non-normative, negative reactions that would be excessively detrimental to me and my mental health."

Remove all possible triggers from literature, though, and I think we would get less interesting, less potent, and less able-to-form-social-commentary literature.

If experiencing something or hearing about something simply upsets you, I don't think it's a trigger and I think it's a misuse of the term to cry "Trigger warning!" Some things simply are upsetting and should upset people.

If an experience or topic is likely to have significant emotional/mental/physical repercussions that may destabilize one's mental state or health, or undo growth work, then I think it's fair to identify it as a trigger and try to avoid it (if you are the person with the trigger).

I have experienced a lot of awful shit in my life but apparently none of it has ever given me PTSD. I have a hard time relating to some people when they discuss triggers. However, I am willing to believe they are a real and necessary thing - but I doubt they are for as many people as who say they are. And I think we talk about triggers in general/on the internet an awful lot when in reality I suspect trigger sufferers are a very small minority.