While I agree that the current state of knowledge is that the pay gap is much smaller but existent (the report you link cites 4.8% to 7.1%) after adjusting for job placement etc., it's absolutely a matter of politics and not data that "there may be nothing to correct" and this is the result of "individual choices". If well-qualified women have a harder time being respected and selected for promotions than equally-qualified men, you'll see an effect like this. If well-qualified women know that it's not worth their time to compete against equally-qualified men, you'll also see a similar effect. If couples of ambitious women and ambitious men generally end up favoring the man's career path, you'll see something that looks a lot like "individual choices," but in aggregate is really the result of gender roles.

I do, however, agree that there may be "nothing to correct" in the sense of simply giving women raises to correct the apparent wage gap. If the wage gap is a side effect of an opportunity gap or trust gap or whatever else, we should be focusing on fixing that.

And yet people will still throw out the ~76 cents on the dollar figure that has been disproven again and again. Even 3% may be statistically significant so I don't see why some people feel the need to be blatantly dishonest regarding the problem.

> Even 3% may be statistically significant so I don't see why some people feel the need to be blatantly dishonest regarding the problem.

Statistical significant doesn't mean that it is significant.

The issue isn't just about "choice" etc: it's also about how jobs that women predominantly do are lower in prestige and pay than jobs that men predominantly do.

The change in programming from being a low prestige, low salary job done by women to being a high prestige, high salary job done by men is sometimes cited an example of that. I don't know if there are flaws in that example, but I think the overall idea makes sense. I read an interesting article about this, but I don't recall the link. Sorry.

Perhaps its important to determine if there are flaws in the example before using it as an example.

Alternatively, perhaps it's worthwhile to suggest an idea that might be relevant to a topic, even if one doesn't currently have the time or inclination to explore it in depth. I mean, you're interested in the truth right? Not just the rhetoric necessary to argue a position you already hold.

But sure, go for it. Why would you want someone to suggest an alternative way to explore or think about a problem when you can respond with snark instead?

You might find life more fulfilling if you don't treat new information as inherently antagonistic.

Yes people used horrible and biased stats all the time to prove their point. And most people believe it.