The statement takes a stand, which is good. I would preface it with something, though, to frame your discussion in some context:
As seen in such and so, the inability to obtain…
…“Truest Identity” can stay if and only if you define it before you use it in your thesis. It needs to be a short definition, enough to explain what it is simply. You cannot assume that something as vague as “truest identity” will be universally understood, but your paper is on the effects of not having this identity, not the identity itself. Assuming you are allowed outside references, which I imagine you are, here, I would cite someone else’s concept of truest identity, as pertinent to your paper. This will allow your definition to stand on theirs, taking some of the burden of explanation off of your shoulders. You still need to frame someone else’s explanation in your words to your paper though:
As source has shown in source document, truest identity is define it.
A thesis should be as un-vague as possible, grounded in facts the reader already knows. Every term in the thesis needs to either be well known (and you’d be surprised to find the number of things that are not well known), or needs to be defined beforehand. Pre-defining “truest identity” will ground your thesis in a known starting point, so that after having been brought up to speed by a small blurb on identity, the thesis statment can stand on its own.
Also, unless you have a working definition of “utter chaos” that is already understood pre-paper, I would avoid giving that as a terminal state in your thesis. It makes a good sound-byte, but skirts around what you’re really trying to say. Chaos may be a good descriptor of the state one may be in without a sense of identity (this is what your paper is exploring), but it is not an effect. Being in a state of utter chaos will do something to someone. That something is your effect, and you should write to develop that effect on someone. It is up to you to determine this effect.