🔗 Share this article

The state government released confidential details about the parent of a transgender teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her child – to a unknown individual.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure emerged as the government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private health records from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a further court case to its disputed ban on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Order on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive banning the prescription of puberty blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the high court ruled the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Guardian Australia has spoken to four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the government decided to ban puberty blockers in the region. By law, the paper must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Health Information

All four were required by the health authorities for particulars of their child’s medical history, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any other evidence which supports your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The information were requested before the statement of reasons would be released.

The email, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can confirm the data submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the email, which was sent recently.

Mothers Describe Request as Breach of Confidentiality

All four mothers described the demand as an invasion of privacy.

A mother said she was hesitant to share the details because the authorities had mistakenly sent her information to a different parent.

“It seems like having to ‘out’ your child to obtain a reply; like, it’s frightening,” she said.

Case of the Mother

The parent, who must remain anonymous because it would also reveal or “out” her child, was among those who requested a statement of reasons both times.

In May, the agency emailed a response intended for her to another parent, revealing her name and address – and the detail that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a government employee later said sorry by telephone; the Guardian has obtained an email from the agency confirming the mistake.

She said she felt “sick and unsafe” as a consequence of the blunder.

“My daughter is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being outed in any public space. She doesn’t like anyone to know that she’s trans,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever disclose is out of need for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to individuals I consider trustworthy and I trust completely.”

The parent was especially worried about the implication it would be “verified” by the medical facility.

She said the demand was “threatening” and “seems coercive”.

Additional Mother Voices Concerns

Another mother said she was unwilling disclosing the health background of her young gender-diverse child.

“It’s not my data, it’s a child’s information,” she said.

“To imagine that that data could inadvertently be leaked someday, in any way, you know, although that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

She wrote back saying the agency had requested an “extraordinary amount of information”.

“I wouldn’t provide that information to another entity that asked for it, especially in the climate of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private information. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to provide any of that information to a group of officials, essentially.”

Legal Service Considering Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which represented the parent in her challenge, was evaluating a new legal action, it said last week.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was crucial to efficiently facilitate the supply of explanations so that minors and their parents can comprehend the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their access to healthcare”.

Authorities Position on Ban

The government has repeatedly said the prohibition would stay enforced until a review into trans healthcare had been completed.