These findings do not support the existence of a systematic price premium

From Investigating the Pink Tax: Evidence Against a Systematic Price Premium for Women in CPG by Sarah Moshary, Anna Tuchman, Natasha Bhatia.  From the Abstract.

This paper provides evidence on price disparities for personal care products targeted at different genders using a national dataset of grocery, convenience, drugstore, and mass merchandiser sales. We find that women’s products are more expensive in some categories (e.g., deodorant) but less expensive in others (e.g., razors). Further, in an apples-to-apples comparison of women’s and men’s products with similar ingredients, the women’s variant is less expensive in three out of five categories. Our results call into question the need for and efficacy of recently proposed and enacted legislation mandating price parity across gendered products.

From the paper itself.

We find that the pink gap is often negative; men’s products command higher per-product prices in six of nine categories that we study and higher unit prices in three of nine categories. We then estimate the pink tax via a comparison of products manufactured by the same firm and comprising the same leading ingredients. Men’s products are more expensive in three of five categories when we control for ingredients. These findings do not support the existence of a systematic price premium for women’s products, but our results do reveal that gender segmentation in personal care is pervasive and operates through product differentiation. A back-of-the-envelope calculation implies that the average household would save 1% by switching to substantially similar products targeted to a different gender.

I don't hear the pink tax referenced all that often anymore but it certainly has been around a long, long time and generally accepted as true.  And perhaps I simply don't travel in the right circles where I would see it discussed.  

Good to see someone testing it.  Always sounded vaguely plausible but also, believing in competitive markets, vaguely implausible as well.  

One more article of victimhood faith up in smoke.