Not GP, but:

From your wikipedia link

> There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap: non-adjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter typically takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience.[1] In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average woman's annual salary is 79% of the average man's salary, compared to 95% for the adjusted average salary.[2][3][4][5]

The remaining 5% could be from the "women are wonderful" positive attributes not being the narrow selection of ones that are highly sought after in well-renumerated jobs, or (spitballing here) psychosocial (Expectations of a pay gap driving negotiation behavior or something).

Not needed because "women are wonderful" is to some degree mostly orthogonal to "men are more professional/deserve more/"... wonderful good attributes are not needed or even to some degree counter to "high performance" (but depends a lot where we look at, sure!)

Also pay-gap has likely also to do with the current men-bias also? Wonder if that would be the same if we had 90% woman throughout in these decising positions..

In the end all mine assumptions, what I actually want to say is: I don't think those two contradict or relate at all.

They're two related but ultimately very different phenomena, they don't necessarily need reconciliation.