> ...the study doesn't seem to account for the profession, which would make it as meaningless as other gender gap studies I have seen so far.
Why is it meaningless? It used to be unjust that all doctors and lawyers were men. It was just understood that the wage gap then was downstream from career and employment gaps.
You are assuming that the equilibrium assuming complete fairness is 50% women in every profession. Which will simply not be the case (doctors is a good example, the female ratio is more like 60% today). And if it is off in any direction from 50% then the gap cannot be measured ignoring the profession.
Why is it meaningless? It used to be unjust that all doctors and lawyers were men. It was just understood that the wage gap then was downstream from career and employment gaps.