I believe you're very much mistaken on this point. Fragrances are nothing more than molecules which in themselves aren't masculine or feminine. The reason we regard some some smells as masculine or feminine is because we've been told they are, either by direct marketing or by observing what others are wearing which is basically indirect marketing / social conditioning. Take skirts for example: they're pretty much regarded as feminine in the whole world except for Scotland, where men wear kilts.
Merlino, no offense, but I think you are reading into his quote a little too deeply. I think you are missing the point. He did not mean it in the context of a chemistry/molecular biology/sociology lab so it is misplaced to apply it as such, but, on the other hand, you are, in fact, correct if we look at it as the last link in the chain and break it down to its most basic form. Yes, we do define masculaine and feminine by certain guidelines, but they are helpful, they help us distinguish. It is nothing more than a tool for categorization to help us organize scents, clothes, etc... He meant it as a tool for characterizing a scent, which is, in fact, very appropriate. Again, we need categorizations to help us distinguish. Even if you break it down to a molecular level, which is misplaced, it is still, nonetheless, helpful and quite applicable. If we look at the world using your perspective then the analysis for everything would be as such: well, we are all made of molecules so we are all the same, people, objects, animals, etc...
Your analysis reminds me, obviously, of the Shakespeare quote regarding how the smell of a rose would still smell the same even if it were called something else.