I think the only one with an agenda is you dude. Having 'male' as a specification in the headline is something pretty innocuous.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it wasn't innocuous and I'm not the one who brought it up. Someone said that those pointing out adding "male" was unnecessary were being petty. I simply pointed out that it's not as petty as adding it in the first place. Something can be both pretty innocuous and petty. If you went up to 100 people in the street and asked them to name the best footballers, you know full well they'd all list male footballers and as I've already pointed out, we have these kinds of threads all the time on here and everyone lists males. So it was 100% being petty.
As for it being agenda driven, it's in the Guardian. The Guardian doesn't hide it's "wokeness." They don't deny their agenda. They aren't like the BBC, who will claim and try to be politically neutral. It's not worth a long drawn out discussion over, so it's best to leave it here, but there is no point trying to argue that adding "male" isn't a totally trivial adjunct and that it was done in a publication that is open about it's agenda.