That's still inequality, though.
It's not inequality if it's not equal work. The more we look at the details we see the unexplained differences between male and female income get smaller and smaller and smaller. It's like god of the gaps, we keep inserting "sexism" in there every time we stop looking because we've had it drilled into us that it's definitely there and a huge problem.
'
Ok, well you may have explained that men have more higher paying jobs than women do, but there's still a gap!! ... Ok, well you may have explained that men work more hours than women do, but look there's still a gap!!'
The fallacy is in assuming that because there is a gap we are justified in saying sexism is the cause of that disparity. We can show that women earn more money than men do in various jobs even male dominated ones, does that mean women are being paid more than men are for the same work? Well that actually might be true since we have affirmative action giving women special treatment, but it's still not necessarily true and there's a variety of factors that could explain it. Single childless women under 30 working full time earn more money than their male counterparts on average, so does that mean men are discriminated against? Again, due to affirmative action it is legal to discriminate against men, not to mention quotas, so that actually may be true, but in the same way it could be down to plenty of other reasons.
Unless you are prepared to conclude that men are discriminated against as well, even in industries which are male dominated where you'd expect (going by the theories of feminists) the most discrimination against women to occur, then you aren't even just wrong, but you're also not being consistent.
As I said, this is the "pay gap of the gaps". They start out with the most vague averaged figure you can find, the averaged income of men and women. Then this is claimed that it shows women aren't paid the same for the same work. You start accounting for variables like the industry type, hours worked, etc, and the gap closes more and more. But you can still see a gap in the generalised income so it must still be true, right? But the gap keeps closing more and more, and if you don't cherry pick you can find women being paid more than men, but it still isn't good enough and must be hand waved even though there is no way this should be possible in their theory. The pay gap of sexist discrimination against women must still be there, somewhere.
There may be a legitimate issue in some areas, but the fact that this is always the path taken in the argument, one of forever shifting goal posts, shows that the truth is really not important to them. Using the largest most emotive "gap" they can get away with is. Talking about something like a general 8% gap just isn't as galvanising and shocking as 21%, so they use that, unless they are forced to move those goal posts.
. I also often need to do that with edits myself, but I notice you still didn't respond to the point about the wage gap. There really is no getting around it, the claims feminists make here like Watson does are false and are either accidental through ignorance or they are deliberate lies. There is a relevant conversation to have and it also involves choices men make in life, but that is not the point feminists make unless they are forced into moving the goal posts, but I'm sure you can agree that it's a very different one.
