I think the BBC is following me

[speakingwoman]

I dozed off last night to a radio 4 programme called "Agendered" (not sure of spelling) which had an item about 8x7 being redefined as not 56 any more and people who insisted on it being 56 being bigots.(although 7x8 WAS still 56...)

Then I woke up to the Today programme talking about the Daily Mail headline about women being sent to the Gulag.....

Is this good?

Meant to listen to that - will listenagain/I-player.

I rarely listen to Today these days. Did they mention the context at all, or just neatly airbrush it out?

it was that "what the papers say" section they have around 8am....

Agendum: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bgrhy5

Owen the Government Minister:
"if a sufficient number of people strongly believe that 7 8s are 62 then we must ensure their views are represented in our schools..."

"clearly the government needs to do more to support the 8 times table"

"What about the 7 times table, will it be affected?
no"

I'm going to have to give that a listen.

"What about the 7 times table, will it be affected?
no"

Except it will, by having 7*8 redefined. Which is depressingly reflective of the ignoring of women about the GRA.

That sounds brilliant. And daring. Wonder if many people would get it.

There was a TV program mentioned recently about 2 groups of people who live in the same city but who can't acknowledge each other exist. Does anyone know what its called?

no, 7 8s are still 56. The 7 times table is unaffected.

It's only 8 7s that have changed.

think that was "the city and the city" or something like that, upstart
my partner like the book (irrelevant, i know!)

The City & The City is China Mieville. Great book, not seen the adaption yet.

Brilliant thank you!

That programme was stunning and brave. Lots of number dysphoria out there that is the result of digit-shaming.

Frankly, the 7 times table is bigoted and phobic for claiming it will be affected by this change. 7 times 8 being recognised as it's authentic self of 62 has no bearing on the existence of the 7 times table. 8 7s can continue being 56. The definition of 56 can be expanded to include 62, indeed must, and it is the obligation of cis-numbers to be inclusive of all answers, not just those that fit the narrow definition of 'correct'.
We must stamp out intolerance where we find it.

We have however, decided to redact the number 56 from maths books, scientific calculators and bus timetables for not being inclusive. There is no room for prejudice in this regard. The official cross-party line is that 7 8s ARE 62 and our numbers and calculations committee have a proposed members bill which we are consulting on, to update our frankly outdated and restrictive laws on the subject. Some purported mathematicians have objected, which is astonishing. You'd think they would welcome ALL numbers, not just ones which fit their limited views of what 7 8s should be.

7 8s are 62. #NoDebate

I actually find this decision deeply exclusionary, by focusing on the rights of whole numbers it fails to take into account the full rainbow spectrum of numbers that do not identify as whole.
Where does this leave 61.75? Or 62.09?

I urge an expansion of the answer in order to recognise any expressions of number between 61-63.

Brilliant Barracker

Bravo Barracker!