It is unlikely there is any single reason for why women are deemed less valuable. What has you leaning on trust specifically? That is a bit out in left field. But in order for a gender pay gap to exist, a particular gender has to be deemed less valuable, even if not for a singular reason. You can't have a gender pay gap otherwise.
> assume that a woman won't push back as hard or because they just feel uncomfortable with a woman earning that much (or more than her colleagues).
Exactly. They are seen as less valuable in the marketplace, like ground beef is seen as being less valuable than steak. You could pay just as much for ground beef as steak if you really wanted to. There is nothing stopping you. But since you know the ground beef sellers will give in to a lower price you (most people at least) will take advantage.
For not finding the argument convincing, you've sure put in a lot of effort to repeat it!
> One way to change that is to a) surface these biases, and b) encourage women to be as assertive in salary negotiations as men.
Strange tangent, but okay. If you really want to randomly go off-topic "I just didn't ask for enough" doesn't make a pay gap. To present it as such is rather disingenuous. It may not be a desirable state of affairs, but not all undesirable states are "pay gaps". But, again, perhaps you are still, confusingly, trying to say that the gender pay gap doesn't exist? You wouldn't be the first.
Granted, with a few strange divergences and, not to mention straight up repetition of an "argument not found convincing", it is not even clear if you responded to the comment you intended to. If you mistakenly pressed the wrong "reply" button, understood! I'm sure we've all done it before.