OK, but how is that sex-based? It's not like there's an overall trend of women being treated respectfully and men being treated on a first-name basis (or is there? I don't read Jezebel, maybe that's a thing with them).
They do say "guy", but that's more part of the informal style than anything. And I mean I know they don't fail to mention women are women when talking about them, either, so it's not different treatment by gender.
they could've used another sentence to say the same thing, for example, "canadians elect justin trudeau". same basic meaning, but the phrasing changes where the emphasis is put. sure, "guy" is informal, but when you add in the "guy named justin" (like any other joe shmoe you may come across) and when you add in the "fuckable" comment, it's objectifying his sex (gender? i'm confused). the more i read the headline, the more it's condescending, and i don't even like the guy. it is different treatment by gender because statistically speaking, women are the oddity. there's what, one woman for every five guys in politics? everybody assumes a politician is gonna be a guy (for better or worse), so why emphasize on the person's gender when they're in the majority if it's not to explicitely objectify, belittle, reduce, or ridicule them?
iirc, jezebel is the braindead kind of "grrrl power", so you can extrapolate from there "oh, they hired a justin to do a job a girl could do better". i'm not saying that's jezebel's intention, at least i hope not. perhaps i'm reading too much into it. but if i thought about it, some idiot might just think about it too and start a shitstorm.
disclaimer: i will consider jezebel a trashy tabloid until proven factual and respectable. i will consider trudeau a scumbag until proven competent (and even then, i leave room for doubt).