🔗 Share this article

The state government released private details about the mother of a trans teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her teen – to a unknown individual.

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure emerged as the government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential health records from guardians of transgender children who are considering a further court case to its disputed prohibition on hormone blockers.

Latest Government Directive on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive banning the use of hormone blockers for transgender patients, shortly after the high court determined the initial ban was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has spoken to several parents who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a detailed account of why the government made a decision to prohibit puberty blockers in the region. By law, the document must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Medical Details

All four were asked by the health authorities for particulars of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their date of birth and any other evidence which confirms your teen having a medical confirmation of gender dysphoria”.

The information were requested before the explanation would be released.

The email, which has been seen by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a client of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can confirm the information provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” states the communication, which was dispatched last Friday.

Parents Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

Each parent characterized the request as an violation of confidentiality.

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

“It feels like having to reveal your teen to obtain a reply; like, it’s frightening,” she said.

Case of Louise*

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or expose her teen, was one of several who requested a statement of reasons both times.

Earlier, the agency emailed a response intended for her to someone else, revealing her name and location – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the media has obtained an email from the agency admitting the error.

She said she felt “ill and vulnerable” as a consequence of the blunder.

“My daughter is incredibly private. She is deeply afraid of being outed in any public space. She dislikes anyone to know that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my core as much as possible. The only time I ever, ever share is out of need for obtaining entry to supports and exclusively to people I deem trustworthy and I know well.”

Louise was particularly concerned about the implication it would be “verified” by the hospital.

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

Additional Parent Voices Worries

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

“It’s not my data, it’s a seven-year-old’s information,” she said.

“To think that that data could inadvertently be disclosed one day, in any manner, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

She wrote back saying the department had requested an “excessive level of detail”.

“I would not share that data to any other organisation that requested it, especially in the climate of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to submit such details to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Legal Service Weighing Further Action

The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the parent in her challenge, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of explanations so that children and their parents can understand the logic behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

The authorities has consistently said the prohibition would remain in place until a examination into trans healthcare had been completed.