A way to describe the transformation of cities through a gendered lens, paralleling but distinct from the concept of gentrification.

Genderfication brings marginalized experiences (e.g., women’s mobility patterns, LGBTQ+ safety concerns, care-related needs) into the core of planning.
 

It legitimizes subjective data like emotions, perceptions, and narratives, alongside traditional quantitative datasets.

Can lead to safer, more accessible, and equitable public spaces — better lighting, inclusive playgrounds, safer transport, and more visible infrastructure for care (toilets, benches, childcare).
 

Expands urban design beyond “neutral” (but male-biased) standards.

Stimulates municipal and institutional innovation (e.g., gender audits, feminist budgeting, intersectional planning).
 

Opens pathways for data-driven advocacy that integrates feminist human geography with urban governance.

Cities may adopt “feminist branding” (e.g., painting benches pink, hosting women’s events) without addressing structural inequalities.
 

Risk of depoliticizing feminist struggles by turning them into marketing strategies.

Developers or institutions may use “inclusive design” labels as selling points to attract investors or tourists while ignoring the deeper needs of marginalized communities.
 

Gender becomes a marketed identity, not a structural force in planning.

If genderfication remain project-based (e.g., one neighborhood pilot), they risk being tokenistic rather than systemic.
 

Without integration into formal policy structures, efforts remain isolated.