This argument has been rehashed to death. There are multiple studies, all adjusting for different variables.
The original comment's point is fair, in that the headline is clickbait, in that it associates this particular person's lesser pay with her gender, by singling it out.
It'd be equivalent to saying "only woman in company of 10 makes less than everybody else" without mentioning her level of experience or duties.
As for your argument that different studies adjust for different variables, that's irrelevant. My argument wasn't that individual women or women in specific jobs earn less than men do, it was that women in aggregate (meaning: all adult women) earn less in total. By adjusting for different variables you can only conclude that the wage gap is justified (e.g. because women on average have less demanding jobs, work fewer hours, whatever) not that the wage gap doesn't exist. So the level of experience or the duties of the woman on the Snap board is totally irrelevant here, because even if there are reasons for why she earns less that doesn't change the fact that she does earn less and that therefore Snap contributes to the wage gap.
From your argument, based on decisions women make, they contribute less to the company, and ought to make less than men do.
Therefore, the wage gap is not a problem isn't a problem that needs fixing. Stop dog whistling.
You're really begging the question here. You're assuming that companies do pay the women less regardless of their contributions to the company. As I have said before, there are dozens of studies out there, and you can find evidence for and against the existence of a non-justified gender wage gap.
> Research on the wage gap doesn't conclude that these causal factors morally justify the wage gap, because they don't.
That doesn't make sense. If adjusting factors for contributions to the company reduce the wage gap to zero, there is no wage gap and there is no moral justification needed.