You assert that there's a magical unbiased optimization mechanism. There is not. You then assert that women will do equal work for less money than men and then

You assert that there's a magical unbiased optimization mechanism. There is not. You then assert that women will do equal work for less money than men and then make a bunch of inferences based on this, ignoring multiple faulty aspects of the assertion in the first place. The fundamental disagreement we're having is whether society is biased in the first place. You are making a bunch of analyses and logical inferences about social behaviors of people, but all of the things you are analyzing are fundamentally embedded in a biased culture. By contrast, the people you're arguing against are trying to change the culture that you are making analyses in such that we can actually use analyses like yours effectively. We claim that right now, we cannot. The evidence suggests that "there are fundamental social biases against certain groups resulting in their disadvantage" is an explanation that better reflects reality than biological pseudoscientific assertions. See several of my links above, for instance citing studies that indicate that men judge women's competence based on appearance. Thus, seeking to eliminate those biases is a goal which will result in value.