Research on gender-related online content is often operationalized through harm-centered tasks that collapse non-harmful gender-related and unrelated content, while existing datasets remain concentrated in high-resource languages and Global North settings. To bridge these gaps, we introduce GENDIS, a dataset of 9,600 multilingual, human-annotated YouTube comments from India, Kenya, and Nigeria (3,200 per country), annotated using a two-level framework that first identifies whether gender is referenced and then classifies gender-related content as negative, positive, or neutral. This separation provides a denominator for gender-related discourse independent of harm, enabling both prevalence estimation and characterization of its evaluative range. In the uniform random stratum, 23.8-35.0% of comments are gender-related, and among those with a resolved stance, 82% are neutral or positive. Across models, gender-reference detection is substantially easier than stance classification, especially for positive and neutral speech. Lightly supervised classifiers match frontier zero-shot large language models at substantially lower cost and outperform generic toxicity detection, while cross-country transfer remains limited. GENDIS provides a locally grounded resource for measuring when gender is invoked online and how that reference is framed.

Demographic cue-based evaluation is widely used to study how large language models (LLMs) adapt their responses to signaled demographic attributes within and across groups. This approach typically relies on a single cue (e.g., names) as a proxy for group membership, implicitly treating different cues as interchangeable operationalizations of a single underlying identity-conditioned behavior. We test this assumption in realistic advice-seeking interactions spanning 14.8 million prompts, focusing on race and gender in a U.S. context. We find that cues for the same group induce only partially overlapping changes in model responses, yielding inconsistent conclusions about personalization, while bias conclusions are unstable, with both magnitude and direction of group differences varying across cues. We further show that these inconsistencies reflect differences in cue–group association strength and linguistic features bundled within cues that shape model responses. Together, our findings suggest that demographic conditioning in LLMs is not a cue-invariant category-level parameter but depends fundamentally on how identity is cued, reflecting responses to linguistic signals rather than stable demographic categories. We therefore call for multi-cue, mechanism-aware evaluations as a foundation for robust and interpretable claims about demographic variation in LLM responses.