Harm is not Universal: Community-Specific Toxicity Detection is Urgently Needed

State-of-the-art toxicity detectors for text-to-image generation adopt a one-size-fits-all approach: a single universal model applying fixed safety guidelines to all users. Our empirical evidence shows that these detectors fail to shield marginalized communities: approximately 35% of generated images labeled safe are considered harmful by disability communities. In this position paper, we argue for community-specific toxicity detection (CTD). To demonstrate its feasibility, we collaborate with disability experts to develop safety guidelines for two communities: dwarfism and blind/low vision. Using a dataset of 2,400 annotated T2I-generated images we demonstrate that both large vision-language models and existing general-purpose toxicity detectors catastrophically fail to recognize harmful content under these guidelines in zero-shot settings with F1 score lower than random guessing (F1 0.32 and 0.37). Promisingly, prompt-based adaptation methods (ICL, VQA) substantially improve harm detection performance (GPT-4o: F1 0.50 and 0.78), while parameter-efficient fine-tuning improves smaller models (0.5b-7b with best F1 0.48 and 0.59) with less than 100 demonstrations, but remains sensitive to evolving guidelines. Despite these gains, CTD performance remains far below F1 $\approx 0.9$ achieved for general-purpose toxicity detection, highlighting the challenge and the need for sustained research effort.

DisaBench: A Participatory Evaluation Framework for Disability Harms in Language Models

General-purpose safety benchmarks for large language models do not adequately evaluate disability-related harms. We introduce DisaBench: a taxonomy of twelve disability harm categories co-created with people with disabilities and red teaming experts, a taxonomy-driven evaluation methodology that pairs benign and adversarial prompts across seven life domains, and a dataset of 175 prompts with human-annotated labels on 525 prompt-response pairs. Annotation by four evaluators with lived disability experience reveals three findings: harm rates vary sharply by disability type and will compound in non-text modalities, terminology-driven harm is culturally and temporally bound rather than universally assessable, and standard safety evaluation catches overt failures while missing the subtle harms that only domain expertise can recognize. Disability harm is simultaneously personal, intersectional, and community-defined: it cannot be isolated from the full context of who a person is, and general-purpose benchmarks systematically miss it. We will release the dataset, taxonomy, and methodology via Hugging Face and an open-source red teaming framework for direct integration into existing safety pipelines with no additional infrastructure.