There was a time when I worried a lot about gearing. I thought I needed super low gears and worried that I wouldn't get up hills with my touring load. But I lightened my gear load and got a bit fitter and now I really couldn't care less about gearing. I've toured using only 2 gears (67" and 39") and on a compact crank 2x10 with a 104" to 37" range and on a 2x9 with a 103" to 21" range; I enjoyed each trip. There is no right or wrong here; you don't need a triple to tour, but if you like triples go ahead. However, once you leave behind the touring dogma of what bike and gearing you need to tour successfully it opens up a range of bikes that are a lot more fun than most touring bikes.
You are correct that there is no right and wrong here but please respect others choices as well. Also respect others abilities. Your post has lots of loaded words in it that can easily be interpreted as insulting or holier-than-thou. Things like 'got a bit fitter', 'you don't need a triple to tour', even 'touring dogma' are all loaded terms.
I am not 'unfit'. I don't think that anyone who uses a triple is 'unfit'. I don't even consider anyone who posts here is 'unfit'. We bicycle tourist do an activity that not 1 in a thousand Americans do. By its very nature, bicycle touring requires at least a small level of fitness that is higher than the general population.
You may not want a triple for touring. That's
you and fits your style. I did a 24 ride days and 1200 mile tour this summer through the toughest terrain (81,000 feet of climbing) that I've ever encountered and
I appreciated my triple every single day. I also appreciated the gear I carried everyday. Maybe my load could have been lighter but that's my choice. But with 81,000 feet of climbing, including 5000 feet over 14 miles on the second day, I'm quite happy I had a triple and a very low one to boot.
You may like the minimalist approach to touring...more power to you...but
I don't want to make the kinds of sacrifices that you are willing to make just so that I can use a double.