🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed confidential information about the parent of a trans teenager – data she says potentially exposed her teen – to a stranger.

Allegations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure came as the government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private medical information from guardians of transgender children who are considering a further legal challenge to its controversial ban on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Order on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a new order banning the use of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the state’s supreme 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 authorities made a decision to ban puberty blockers in the state. By law, the document must be supplied under the legal statute.

Requested Health Information

Each were required by the Queensland health department for particulars of their child’s medical history, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any other evidence which supports your child having a medical confirmation of gender identity disorder”.

The information were requested before the explanation would be provided.

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

Mothers Label Demand as Invasion of Privacy

Each parent characterized the demand as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was hesitant to share the details because the state government had mistakenly forwarded her data to a different parent.

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

Case of the Mother

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her child, was among those who requested a statement of reasons on multiple occasions.

In May, the department emailed a response intended for her to another parent, revealing her name and address – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a department official later said sorry by telephone; the Guardian has seen an message from the department confirming the error.

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

“My child is incredibly private. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any public space. She dislikes anyone to be aware that she’s trans,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The only time I ever share is out of need for gaining access to supports and only to individuals I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

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

She said the demand was “intimidating” and “feels threatening”.

Other Parent Voices Concerns

Sally* said she was unwilling revealing the health background of her young gender-diverse child.

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

“To think that that data could inadvertently be leaked one day, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

She responded saying the department had asked for an “extraordinary amount of information”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to another entity that requested it, especially in the climate of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your medical condition to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to submit such details to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Advocacy Group Weighing Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which assisted the mother in her case, was considering a second lawsuit, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had impacted about hundreds of minors and their families and it was crucial to efficiently facilitate the supply of reasons so that minors and their guardians can comprehend the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their access to healthcare”.

Authorities Position on Prohibition

The government has repeatedly said the ban would remain in place until a review into gender-affirming care had been completed.