Why Gender Signifiers are Actually Okay!

In a video called "Ms. Male Character", Anita Sarkeesian shortly discusses gender signifiers and why they are bad. Gender signifiers are simply a way of showing the gender of a character - there is nothing wrong with this. However, she complains, saying that a bow is not inherently feminine. I do agree with her on that, partially because I find the gender binary dumb. However, there is honestly no problem with gender signifiers!
There is no problem with viewing an item as traditionally feminine. For example, short hair is usually seen as traditionally masculine, and long hair is traditionally feminine. No one sees any problems with a girl with short hair and a boy with long hair, though. It's the same with bows: society might view them as traditionally feminine, but there's no reason a boy can't wear one! Dresses, make-up, and dolls are in the same boat. Women can like footballs and cars, too! Honestly, these things stereotypically belong to one gender, but either gender can use them.
Using gender siginifiers is just like using certain traits to explain flat characters. For example, in The Smurfs, each smurf has one or two traits that describe them: Papa Smurf is the patriarch, Smurfette is the girly one, Sassette is the tomboy, Vanity Smurf is vain, Hefty Smurf is strong, and Grouchy Smurf is, well, grouchy. These smurfs can all be described in one or two words, and that's what's happening with gender signifiers: the author is explaining that this character is girly with just what she wears.
Despite the sexism Sarkeesian attempts to call out within the video, gender sigifiers aren't actually that big of a deal. It should be noted, however, that I am not trying to call Anita out. I am trying to point out her shortcomings and provide better arguments.