For years now, radical LGBT activists have been telling us that “identity trumps reality.” Thus, if a biological male “identifies” as a woman, he is in fact a woman. Likewise, if a biological woman “identifies” as a man, she is in fact a man. These activists argue that belief “creates” reality, despite the fact that belief does not change a single physical fact.
Well, the liberal Supreme Court of Mexico has taken this thinking to the next level by ruling that the age a person “identifies” with is in fact that person’s age. In a ruling issued on December 3, 2021, the court stated:
[I]f before society a person has constantly identified himself in his private and public acts with a date of birth, then this is part of his biography, of his “personal truth,” since identity is built throughout life of the human being, understanding elements and aspects that go beyond “biological truth.” These elements must be reflected in the birth certificate, as it is a document through which a person is identified and individualized within society.
The court then added that a change on one’s birth certificate to the age one identifies with can be made only if “bad faith is not observed to want to use that change to create, modify or extinguish rights or obligations to the detriment of third parties.”
Despite the above conditional language regarding bad faith, the court’s ruling has opened up a can of worms that can lead to devastating and absurd results, especially in regard to our children. For example, what happens if a 30-year-old pedophile claims that he cannot be prosecuted for raping a minor because he “in good faith” identifies as a 10-year-old? Or if a 30-year-old man argues that he cannot be prosecuted for statutory rape because he “in good faith” identifies as a 16-year-old boy? (This is not hard to believe in regard to many immature men). Or what if a mature 12-year-old claims that she must be given a driver’s license or be allowed to buy alcohol because she “in good faith” identifies as a 21-year-old lady? Or what if a mature 13-year-old boy argues he must be let into a strip club because he “in good faith” identifies as a 25-year-old man? Or what if a 40-year-old person claims that he is entitled to a pension and reduced retiree health insurance because he “in good faith” identifies as a 65-year-old? The list of possible perverse outcomes goes on and on.
Once liberal elites, especially lawmakers and judges, accept the false belief pushed by radical LGBT ideologues that biological men can become women and biological women can become men because “identity trumps reality,” they open up a Pandora’s box. If “identity” truly trumps reality, then how one “identifies” oneself—no matter how contrary to fact—must be accepted as reality. The inmates truly are running the asylum. Let’s hope that the silent majority which supports common sense and appreciates reality will rise up against this insanity before it is too late.
