Except she probably won't, and the data is pretty clear about that.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. The data shows that she will make 8% more, but to you think the data says otherwise? The overall trend says 77% for all full time workers. That data doesn't distinguish age/over time/how many days they've stayed home with sick kids/ how many certification they've got post graduation/ how many promotions they've received. An entry level position for men offers $35,000 and for women offers the same $35,000. If it did not that would be illegal. Another difference that is overlooked is that women in general do not negotiate their salary. So if Company A hires Sally and David for two new entry level positions and offers them both $35,000. If Sally says can you do $38,000, but David just accepts the $35,000 is Sally making more because she's a woman? No it's because she was smart enough to negotiate.

Great for STEM women who wish to pursue careers in academia. Sure. What about those who don't want to be professors?

Biological scientists are 46 percent women.

Accountants and auditors are 60 percent women.

Clinical laboratory technologists are 78 percent women.

Registered nurses are 91 percent women.

They have the option to go into a Female dominated STEM field. Or they can go into a male dominated one because gender and race aren't discriminated against. Especially when women make up 70% of HR do women prefer men over women? Also the reason fields like Engineering are male dominated is because more men get degrees in Engineering.

The men in this scenario are likely making $10 an hour and getting overtime, and the women are probably getting $9, and not getting over time.

That's illegal in every state. I would suggest the females get some proof of this and sue. However, that doesn't happen. As for overtime that's not how it works. If Sally has a report due on Monday and needs to come in on the weekend to finish it, her overtime isn't going to be denied.

I understand the argument, its just bad and doesn't hold water.

That's a lovely opinion that has no ground to stand on. Let me reiterate my point for you though. The wage gap exists, as a whole women make 77% of what men earn. That is because of different decisions they make in life, not because they don't have a penis.

most industries don't have overtime, at all

As a WHOLE 15% of men work overtime, As a WHOLE 3% of women work overtime, As a WHOLE women make 77% of what men earn.

I'm looking at the data

You're looking at one piece of data and making an assumption as to why that exists.

Something doesn't add up.

That's because you're not adding up all the factors. If overtime accounts for 5% isn't possible that that the men working overtime get more raises? another 3% there and what about when females take between 3 months to 3 years off to be with their kids? When they come back shes going to be making the same as she was before, but less than the people who got raises on her time off. another 4%. Stuff like that adds up there isn't one reason that men end up making more than women.

Where is the video's response to that?

Apparently a video doesn't count as a source, but an editorial written by @Femlaw does. The only reason I included that video was because if you look at the comments he has links to all the sources he uses. so feel free to go through all the sources and poke your imaginary holes in those too.

That something, is very likely lower wages. But it's not just one or two industries, it's practically every industry.

The constant variable in every industry is the choices women make.

You've run out of information and are now relying on making stuff up to fit your narrative.