You're never too young for casual sexism.

Sigh.

We went to Clarks, the seven year-old girl needs black daps for PE. Knowing that her odd-sized feet and tiny ankles make most daps unusable, I asked the assistant to bring out daps and black trainers. We get daps, bright pink trainers, and midnight blue sequinned with purple laces. The daps don't fit and the girl is speechless with desire for the sequinned trainers. I ask again for black trainers suitable for PE, and am told that they don't have any. I ask if they could bring out any from the boys' section, and hey presto, she produces one pair of black trainers in the correct size. Funny that, because I'm sure that if I asked for "girls' daps" they'd explain that there's no difference at that age. Yet there is for trainers in the same size.

The girl meanwhile was underwhelmed and claiming a lack of fit. A pair of insoles later, we were confident that any remaining fit issue could be fixed with new socks. Then it turned out that B had remarked to a boy in her class that she liked his new trainers. "You can't have them, they're for boys" he told her. Hence the reluctance in the shop. So we re-did the conversation about how something is only specifically for boys (or girls) if there's a specific anatomical difference in play, and asking her if she thinks that's the case for trainers. Actually, thanks to my friend G, the exact phrase was "So do you think you need a willy to wear these?" It's not even as if it's a one-off, we have also navigated these waters when buying lunchboxes ("we do have another one but it's a pirate one for boys") and child-sized camping mats ("we don't have any in stock, only a boy's one with a bat on it").

I bet you're all really glad I decided not to blip my new saxophone reeds and tuner, aren't you?