Children should also be able to take their mother's surname

When I was about to give birth, we had to choose. Would she take my last name or that of my beloved, also known as their father? ‘We could also use your name, it's more unique,’ my beloved suggested. I found that particularly generous of him, but I still chose his last name: Van der Horst. I personally have a nanotrauma related to my first and last name because god, how often do I have to sigh and count to one hundred thirty when I try to spell my name, so I wanted to give them the slightly more accessible Van der Horst. ‘Then we'll give the next child your name!’ My beloved is quite the forward thinker and planner. No, no, the lady from the municipality waved a strict finger (we were there to register our unborn child because we are not married), that was not allowed. You made a choice now and all your descendants would be named that way. We chose his name. That they were my children was ultimately obvious. I mean: look at my body.

I am happy with their name and think that their first names form a nice rhythm with their last name. But it's not very emancipated, of course.

So now that I read that Minister Franc Weerwind has sent a note to the House of Representatives to ensure that not only newborns can carry both the father's and mother's name but that it can also be retroactive, I immediately thought: we're going to do this. We're going to make it a celebration. From an emancipatory point of view, I think this is a great good, the right to a double last name. But what turns out? It is retroactive only to 2019. Come on Minister Weerwind, what good is that to us? My friends and I want in too. So please do your best and ensure that all children under 18 can choose a double name. We promise we won't all come at once. But if you do this, you will go down in history. As a hero.