Just calling them pussies and that they should man up isn't debating anything about trigger warnings or political correctness, it's just being confrontational and insulting.
Explain why you believe trigger warnings or demanding political correctness is detrimental to society. If you're going to attack a group's character for what they're supporting, at least provide a reason for why you feel it's necessary to attack the person and not the issue.
Trigger warnings and political correctness are not inherently bad to society, they're essentially empathetic actions at their core. They're born out of conscious attempts to avoid hurting or offending another person. That in itself isn't a sign of weakness or of being a pussy. Furthermore, requesting forewarning for any possibly offensive content that needs to be covered isn't inherently problematic either. People who have undergone traumatic events, or people who are mentally disturbed by certain imagery, have every right to request accommodation.
While it's clear most people in this thread are deriding people who take it to the extreme, where everything is a microaggression, and everything has to be tone-neutral to offend nobody, that's just performing a strawman argument. It's easy to point at the extremes and poke holes into them, but the same arguments against the extremes won't necessarily work against a more measured, moderate approach.
Because where does the extreme end and the acceptable begin? Is it fair for anybody to request a warning before any content depicting sexual violence because they find it distasteful? Is it only alright if they're a woman? Or if they're a rape victim? Or they know somebody who is a rape victim and empathize with them?
What if it's a historically polarizing figure? Christopher Columbus is taught in U.S. primary education as the person who discovered America, but they don't teach how he slaughtered an entire indigenous people in the process until significantly later in the education process. Is it better that the latter is not taught at all? Or would it be better that it gets taught, but with a warning before it gets covered so students who don't feel comfortable learning about it can be excused and receive an alternative, but credit-equivalent, direction of study? Or should it just be taught fully, discovery and destruction, with no warning whatsoever? Should their be an age limits, where students over the age of 16 have to learn about it no matter what? What if they're of indigenous descent, and might be mortified by the historical treatment of their people?
That line will need to be drawn at some point. Confrontation is a powerful learning tool, but it has to be applied appropriately, and with participants willing to engage in it. Balancing the moral dilemma of emotionally sensitive people with the prevalence of controversial material in modern life is not an easy task, and both extremes of total neutrality and total insensitivity are not appropriate answers. Controversy encourages complex reasoning and thought, but unbridled controversy can cause harm to some of the more vulnerable members of society. The benefits of controversial thought can still be obtained while accommodating those who struggle with certain emotional triggers.