Again you miss the beginning- “ishah shelamdah Torah yeish lah sechar aval lo kisechar ha’ish mipnei she’einah metzuvaeh ve’oseh ve’af al pi sheyeish lah secahr tzivu chazal shelo yilmad etc…”
So you have to reconcile the beginning of that halachah that they have sechar with the end that it is not allowed to be taught to them. If you say that there is an issur for women to learn Gemara, why would S”A add the part that they receive sechar? What does that add practically?
So, you could argue that it adds nothing practically, and the S”A was just saying that theoretically they receive sechar but Chazal made an issur for them to learn. IMHO, if that were the case, S”A should have left it out. Are there any other Mitzvos that women are theoretically allowed to do and probably receive sechar for it but Chazal assured it, and the S”A told us all that? Does the S”A say that women receive sechar for wearing tzitizs or tefilin, but Chazal said they aren’t allowed to?
The way I’ve learned it is that a woman is allowed to learn Gemara and she receives sechar for it, as long as she genuinely wants to learn for lishmah reasons. However it cannot be taught to her, in other words it cannot be imposed on her. The issur is on the male (or female) teacher, not the female learner. The teacher has the responsibility to make sure that she wants to do it for the right reasons, and only then can she be taught.