Actually, in america, until fairly recently, the designated colors were reversed. Pink was for baby boys because it was a diminutive red, blue for girls as the color of the virgin Mary. In the mid-1920s, a fashion magazine started that reversal, but that didn't even take hold until the 1950's.
Interestingly, most fashions that are considered gender specific today, are in fact a myth, and really were the reverse of what we think is the way it always was.
Nail color, for example, was a royal man's designation. He wore a dark color, while lesser nobles wore paler colors. Then women were allowed pale colors too, as adornment. Roman generals painted their toes, fingers and lips to match as they went into battle. The top commander wore blood red, roman red, while the other commanders had their own colors -- regimental colors, if you will.
In the 1940s, Rita Hayworth sported blood red to show sexiness, and from that point on it was associated with the feminine sex only, but it was primarily the conservatism of that time that was the taboo breaking of the idea that only sluts and prostitutes painted anything on themselves.
So as you can see, even that has not been gender specific as always. In fact, to be honest, I can't think of one thing off the top of my head that would be truly gender specific, unless related strictly to anatomical form, such as jockstraps or bras, but even bras would not be, as men with enlarged breasts due to gynecomastia wear bras.