With the widespread deployment of large language models (LLMs), existing safety benchmarks remain largely focused on explicitly harmful content, overlooking context-dependent expressions such as dogwhistles, the language that conveys harmful intent while appearing benign on the surface. To address this gap, we introduce DogBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM safety under dogwhistle-driven prompts. DogBench comprises 11,150 prompt instances constructed from controlled templates that embed dogwhistle terms, allowing for enabling direct comparison with explicit toxic terms under identical prompt structures. Each prompt is further annotated with pragmatic attributes, including interaction category and stance tendency. Extensive evaluations across multiple mainstream LLMs reveal a consistent pattern: dogwhistle prompts are substantially more likely to elicit harmful outputs than their explicit toxic counterparts, with an average risk increase of approximately fourfold. These findings expose a blind spot in current safety evaluation and alignment practices. Our work underscores the need to explicitly incorporate dogwhistles into future LLM safety research, with DogBench serving as a dedicated benchmark for this purpose.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into our daily lives, raising significant ethical concerns, especially about perpetuating stereotypes.While group-specific debiasing methods have made progress, they often fail to address multiple biases simultaneously. In contrast, group-agnostic debiasing has the potential to mitigate a variety of biases at once, but remains underexplored.In this work, we investigate the role of neutral words—the group-agnostic component—in enhancing the group-agnostic debiasing process. We first reveal that neutral words are essential for preserving semantic modeling, and we propose 𝜖-DPCE, a method that incorporates a neutral word semantics-based loss function to effectively alleviate the deterioration of the Language Modeling Score (LMS) during the debiasing process. Furthermore, by introducing the SCM-Projection method, we demonstrate that SCM-based debiasing eliminates stereotypes by indirectly disrupting the association between attribute and neutral words in the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) space. Our experiments show that neutral words, which often embed multi-group stereotypical objects, play a key role in contributing to the group-agnostic nature of SCM-based debiasing.