The study from which the article draws is also posted on HN:  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10785107" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10785107</a><p>I&#x27;m going to copy some of the comments I made over there.  Hopefully this is acceptable.<p>The study does not say there is price discrimination, but it heavily implies it.  The WSJ article does say there is discrimination.<p>First of all, I think the article falls into some kind of Political Correctness trap by claiming that certain products are for boys and others are for girls. Why couldn&#x27;t a boy want the pink scooter? Why couldn&#x27;t a girl want red?<p>Building on that, if we see the pink one as &quot;girls&quot; and the red one as &quot;boys&quot; then it does look like discrimination. However, if we view the red one as &quot;neutral&#x2F;base color&quot; and the pink one as a less popular &quot;color option&quot; it seems less like discrimination and more like paying for a unique customization. Do we know there isn&#x27;t a blue scooter priced the same as pink?<p>The conclusion (of the study) states:<p>&gt; DCA found, on average, that women pay approximately 7 percent more than men for similar products. Products’ price differences based on gender are largely inescapable for female consumers simply due to the product offerings available in the market.<p>This seems fundamentally contradictory to me. If the products are sufficiently similar but priced differently, why would women buy the &quot;women&#x27;s version?&quot; What makes it &quot;inescapable?&quot; If product A is so much better than product B, such that buying Product A is &quot;inescapable,&quot; I&#x27;d expect a difference of more than 7% in price.<p>The Wall Street Journal seems to draw the reasonable conclusion in its headline: Women should buy the &quot;men&#x27;s product.&quot;