Lol, knew I'd get flamed.
The thing is, people say 'oh well girls are just naturally drawn to pink, sparkly, princessy, dolly stuff, boys are naturally drawn more to trucks, cars, mechanical stuff' which then in turn leads to 'oh well women are more naturally caring and interested in making themselves look decorative and men are more naturally interested in the important stuff like making and fixing things' which then leads to men doing the important stuff and getting well paid for it, and women being decorative or doing the more shitty menial stuff and getting paid less for it.
But girls and boys aren't naturally drawn to this stuff. Because even before they have come out of the frigging womb they are being placed in 'pink' or 'blue' boxes. Yes on its own calling a baby pink or blue is fairly harmless. And yes, I suppose it's possible that someone who casually categorises their kid by arbitrary colours before the baby has even seen the light of day, may go on to not put them in any other boxes at all 
.....None of these things on their own are harmful but it's the drip drip drip effect that kids are given.
So yes, pink is just a colour. I like pink, it's a nice colour. But if we associate pink with being a girl. Well, what else is associated with pink? Princesses, glitter, sparkles. And suddenly it's 'oh my daughter always loved pink glittery princess stuff, it's just how she is'. And then from there the road goes on.
I'm really not a 'gender neutral mum' type who dresses her boy in fairy stuff and insists her girl plays with trucks. But really, pink or blue before a baby is even born is just bullshit.
And if colours 'doesn't mean anything' then why use them at all? Why not just use boy/girl? And how many of the 'chill out it's just a colour' brigade would find out they are having a boy and then paint their nursery pink? I mean, if it's just a colour, why do you have to adhere to pink for a girl and blue for a boy?