The question of gender in fragrance is, in 2026, the most contested question in the industry. The question has, in the last thirty years, shifted from should fragrance be gendered? to is fragrance gendered? to can fragrance be un-gendered?. The shift has, in our view, been productive. The shift has also, in our view, produced more heat than light.
We asked six voices — one perfumer, one critic, one fragrance editor, one brand founder, one nose, and one chemist — to tell us whether gender, in 2026, still mattered in fragrance. The answers did not converge. The answers, in fact, took positions that are, in some cases, mutually exclusive.
What follows is a transcription of those conversations, edited for length and ordered by clinical convention rather than chronology.
1. Bertrand Duchesne — Perfumer, Grasse
Does gender matter in fragrance?
In materials — no. The molecules I work with do not have a gender. The bergamot does not have a gender. The oud does not have a gender. The sandalwood does not have a gender. The molecules are, in formulation terms, neutral.
In marketing — yes, heavily. The marketing has been the most aggressively gendered category in the cosmetics industry — pink and blue, floral and woody, light and heavy. The marketing is, in most cases, an attempt to sell the same molecule to two different customers at two different prices.
The marketing is, in my view, mostly a mistake — it has produced a generation of gendered fragrances that have, in many cases, lost the fragrance in the gender. The marketing is also, finally, breaking down. The breaking-down has, in the last ten years, accelerated.
What do you make of the un-gendered launches of the last decade?
The un-gendered launch is, in some cases, supported by a fragrance that is, in formulation terms, genuinely un-gendered — a fragrance built around molecules that are not specifically masculine or feminine. In other cases, it is only a marketing gesture — a women’s fragrance sold, with new packaging, as a unisex fragrance.
The genuine un-gendered fragrance is, in my view, one of the most interesting developments in the contemporary market. The gesture-only un-gendered fragrance is, in my view, one of the most cynical.
2. Dr. Sofia Ricci — Cosmetic chemist, Milan
Does gender matter in fragrance?
In skin chemistry — yes, materially. The skin of the wearer is the most important variable in how a fragrance smells. The skin chemistry varies by hormone, by hormone cycle, by age, by diet, and also, on average, by sex — the sebum level, the skin’s pH, the microbiome composition. The higher sebum fixes a fragrance more, in men, on average, than in women.
The chemistry does not, in most cases, produce a gendered fragrance. It produces, in most cases, a skin-specific fragrance — one that smells, on the wearer, the way the wearer is. The skin-specificity is, in most cases, more variable within a sex than between sexes.
What is the industry’s mistake?
The industry’s mistake is to assume that the gendered fragrance has, in formulation terms, a gendered chemistry — that the men’s fragrance contains a masculine molecule that the women’s fragrance does not. The molecules are the molecules. The molecules are not gendered.
The mistake is, in our view, mostly a marketing mistake. The marketing mistake has, in some cases, produced gendered chemistry — the perfumer, asked to make a women’s fragrance, has, in some cases, added a molecule she associates with femininity, even when the molecule has no inherent gender.
3. Yuki Tanaka — Fragrance writer, Tokyo
Does gender matter in fragrance?
In Japan — much less than in the West. The Japanese fragrance market has a much weaker attachment to gender. The Japanese customer is much more likely to choose a fragrance on the basis of smell than on the basis of gender.
The Japanese preference for gender-light fragrance is, in my view, partly a result of the smaller size of the Japanese market — a protection from the Western industry’s gendered marketing that has, in some cases, produced a different kind of customer.
What is the Japanese practice?
The Japanese practice, in 2026, is to wear a single fragrance for a long time. The Japanese customer is, by Western standards, exceptionally patient, exceptionally tolerant of a fragrance that closes to the skin, and exceptionally likely to choose a fragrance on the basis of season and occasion rather than on the basis of gender.
The Japanese practice is, in my view, the practice that the Western industry could most usefully learn from. The learning is, in my view, slow.
4. Anouk Lévêque — Brand founder, Paris
Does gender matter in fragrance?
For my brand — no. For my customer — increasingly, no. For the industry — still, mostly, yes.
My brand has been gender-less since launch. The brand does not declare a gender on its packaging, does not target a gender in its marketing, does not optimise for a gender in its formulations. The brand has, in eight years, found a customer that has, in many cases, been the customer who was tired of the industry’s gendering.
What is the industry’s mistake?
The industry’s mistake is the assumption that gender is a useful variable for the customer. The customer, in 2026, is much more sophisticated about gender than the industry gives her credit for. The customer is much more interested in smell than in gender. The industry is still selling to a customer that, mostly, does not exist.
What do you make of the un-gendered launches of the last decade?
The un-gendered launch is, in my view, the right move for the wrong reason. The right reason is that gender is a less useful variable than the industry thinks. The wrong reason is that gender is a marketing variable the launch can use to position itself as progressive. The progressive positioning is, in my view, a positioning, not a practice.
5. Marco Conti — Independent nose, Florence
Does gender matter in fragrance?
In my personal practice — less and less. I have become increasingly unwilling to make a fragrance that is, in formulation terms, gendered. I have become increasingly interested in un-gendered formulations — fragrances that are, in their materials, neither specifically masculine nor specifically feminine.
The un-gendered formulation is, in my experience, harder than the gendered one. It requires a more disciplined approach to the materials — a discipline often missing from the gendered formulation, which can hide behind a gender by using a molecule that is, in itself, masculine or feminine, to carry the rest of the structure.
What is the industry’s mistake?
The industry’s mistake is the fougère — the family that has been, for a hundred years, the masculine default: lavender, oakmoss, coumarin, often with a touch of a synthetic musk. The fougère has, in the industry’s mind, become the masculine structure, the structure that cannot be worn by a woman.
The fougère can, in fact, be worn by a woman — and has been worn by women for a hundred years. They have just, in most cases, not been told. The industry’s mistake is, in my view, the telling.
6. Anya Brennan — Beauty editor (retired), London
Does gender matter in fragrance?
For the customer — yes. For the chemistry — no. For the writing — complicated.
The customer, in 2026, still, mostly, wants to be told what kind of fragrance to wear. The customer is still, mostly, choosing between for him and for her. The choosing is, in many cases, less about the fragrance than about the permission — looking for a fragrance that gives her permission to wear it. The permission is, in many cases, the gendered marketing. The permission is, in many cases, what the customer is buying.
What is the writer’s question?
The writer’s question is whether to write about gender. The writer can, in my view, write about a fragrance without mentioning its gender. The writer can also write about a fragrance that is, in its marketing, gendered, without endorsing the marketing. The endorsement is the choice.
What do you make of the un-gendered launches?
The un-gendered launches of the last decade have been mostly a marketing answer to a cultural question — is gender useful? The cultural question is, in my view, more interesting than the marketing answer. The position is, in my view, mostly correct. The position is, in my view, mostly insufficient.
What we take from this
Six voices, six positions. The positions, taken together, are more interesting than any one of them alone. What emerges, across the six answers, is a single principle: marketing is gendered, materials are not.
The marketing is, in most cases, gendered. The materials are not. The chemistry is not. The skin is not. The customer is, in most cases, more sophisticated about gender than the industry gives her credit for.
The customer’s question, in 2026, is not, in our view, is this fragrance for me? It is do I want to wear this fragrance? The second question is, in our view, the right question. It is also the question the industry’s gendered marketing has, for forty years, been trying to make unnecessary.
The un-gendered marketing has, in the last ten years, been trying to answer this question in place of the customer. The un-gendered marketing has, in our view, mostly failed — because it has, in most cases, been a positioning, not a practice. The practice is, in our view, what the customer is asking for.
The practice is also what the wearer is asking for. The wearer is the customer who has stopped looking for permission — who wears what she wears because she has decided to wear it. The wearer is, in the most literal sense, the customer who has un-gendered herself.
The wearer is, in 2026, the customer the industry is, finally, trying to make. The making is slow. The making is the work. The work is, in our view, what the gender question is, finally, for.