A couple of days ago, I posted about the US to end preferential requirements for women in combat arms positions : r/MensRights

Then I saw a feminist sub puffing themselves up over this article:

'None of us have ever asked for special treatment' - US female veterans respond to Hegseth speech : BBC

The hit piece is cleverly done: First, all the lies are presented as quotations from US female veterans. This is called inoculation framing and plausible deniability. Quotations don't have to be factually correct, right? Even if they form the majority of the article, right?

So, in the article, you will first read the following emotional statements:

"the standards have always been the same for men and women."
[...]
"None of us have ever asked for special treatment,"
[...]
"I am sick and tired of Pete Hegseth lying about women in the military and standards,"
[...]
"There has always been one standard for those jobs,"
[...]
"gender and age were not part of assessments given for combat roles."
[...]
"all personnel in those roles have to pass the same test."
[...]
"These standards have always been gender neutral, 

And then, as an afterthought, the author buries the truth at the end of one paragraph. This is called burying the lede and again, plausible deniability:

This is not the same for the annual physical tests given to all service members, which include routine exercises like push-ups. In those, the standards and scores do differ based on age and gender, and the tests vary by unit.

(You can see a list of requirements specifically lowered for women in my original post.)

For a good measure, BBC adds a dose of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD):

[Hegseth] maintained that women would not be excluded from the armed forces outright.

And more framing techniques:

Hegseth reiterated his beliefs that the military had lowered standards to accommodate women and put service members at risk.

Where the author pretends the fact of lowered standards is just Hegseth's belief. While at the same time, the sentence blurs the distinction between "military lowered standards to accommodate women" and "military lowered standards to put service members at risk".