The gender pay gap is nonexistent change my mind.

RebuttalOf Pro's 4 sources he has used, all them support my argument except for a wikipedia article which doesn't seem relevant to the argument in any way either for or against.Source 1He presents the link https://money.howstuffworks.com... is page 2 of a 3 page article.Page 1 states: "Despite the race to catch up, empirical data shows that the gender gap persists across age groups, races, education levels and industry sectors. Take higher education, for example. As of 2007, only 1.5 percent more men received bachelor's degrees than women [source: U.S. Census Bureau]. Yet, the average annual income of degree-holding men topped that of women by more than $26,000 [source: U.S. Census Bureau]."Page 3 states: "But even with the legal floodgates opened for women to enter the workforce, research indicates that it hasn't eliminated all major hurdles for women in the workplace. Reams of data point to compensation discrepancies among men and women, but not in quality of work."Even page 2 which he links to states: "An explanation for the gender gap doesn't just boil down to rampant sexism. It's a far more nuanced combination of economic, social and educational factors." Doesn't say that it isn't sexism, it says that it's not JUST sexism - which perfectly matches my description in round 1Source 2PRO also presents https://www.wsj.com... is blocked for me but seems to be the same story covered in http://content.time.com.... This states that single, childless women between 22 and 30 who live in large cities earn more than men while all other women do not.Ergo the vast majority of women earn less than men and not only that but it shows it isn't down to "good choices" as Pro presents it. People don't choose their age and these same women who earn more in their initial working years then earn less than men as they get older - despite their choices, education, etc being just as viable as ever.Source 3PRO links to a wikipedia article on affirmitive action. There doesn't seem to be any relevance there. Presumably it's meant to be related to his claim that affirmitive action is a "scam" but I can't see anything supporting this in the link.Source 4 The final source is https://www.today.com... he uses to back up his point that "boys are boys". In fact the article shows that children pick up gender roles from the society around them, talking about how:“Guns are part of what is ‘boy.’ They see pictures of policeman, detectives, cowboys, hunters … and they are all men,” Thompson wrote in an e-mail. https://media3.s-nbcnews.com...; data-share-url="http://on.today.com...; data-headline="Boys play with toy guns... because they are boys" data-share-headline="Boys%20play%20with%20toy%20guns...%20because%20they%20are%20boys" data-section="parents"> And it doesn’t much matter that my husband and I restrict toy guns and violent media: Boys are constantly seeing real-life and fictional examples of men, and they’re always watching older boys for cues, too. “All you have to do is look into the face of a three-year-old when he is watching five and six-year-olds play, and you know he is drinking it all in. ‘This is what it means to be a powerful boy! This is what men do!’"Once again this fully supports my Round 1 argument, and matches my statement of 'We cannot simply say "Oh, women choose to pick less dangerous occupations" when males are practically raised from birth to glorify action movies and violence' perfectly.The only part of his argument his that doesn't seem to relate to his sources which - as explained above support my argument and not his - is the last hypothetical question about a female looking for work.General Arguments- Pro makes no argument against the poitn I raised in R1 that all his sources show the gender pay gap exists.- Pro states "I was simply talking about the US firs of all" but there is no mention of the US in either the subejct or the opening post and as a worldwide issue and a non US resicdent myself I have no clue why I should be restricting the topic to just the USA.- He ends with a hypothetical question about a female job seeker. There are numerous problems with his argument here:1) He claims I said that choices are sexist. I did not. My point in round 1 is that people are not emotionless robots. We are effected by the society we are brought up in. When you look for a job it isn't a choice that you make like an emotionless logical robot but as a human beign that#'s been brought up for decades in a society with gender roles, stereotypes, etc that will effect your thinking. Pro's own link concedes this as shown above.2) The hours are unrealistic. STEM work slightly longer hours than the norm (https://careersmart.org.uk...) while teachers work more hours than average compared to othe rprofessions (https://edition.cnn.com...)3) Pro presents one option as the "dream job" obviously someone would pursue their dream job whatever it is, but there is no rationale why that dream job would be teaching for women or a STEM field for men. Why is the woman's dream job not STEM and why isn't she going down that route?- In regards to the Springer link, that is an abstract (e.g. introduction) for an evidence scientific peer reviewed study which is a far better level of evidence than anything PRO has provided. If you have the relevant access - which most university students will have - you can even look up the full study and go through the the full sourced and evidence based argument. If "they aren't exactly that good" then PRO is required to put forward an argument explaining why they aren't good.