The types int&, int&&, int correspond perfectly well to int lvalue, int xvalue, int prvalue, so it's reasonable to describe - as a shorthand - an expression with type int and value category xvalue as having type int&&.
Sometimes, maybe, and it does have the benefit of brevity. But when interpreting the Standard, it's important to remember that anywhere it says "the type of [an] expression", this type is not a reference type. And determining the behavior of tricky overload resolution cases is a scenario where we do want to be very technical and precise. Though a downside of common use of the shorthand is that it can lead others to misinterpret parts of the Standard if they don't know this rule.