🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed private information about the mother of a transgender teenager – information she says potentially “outed” her teen – to a unknown individual.

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The revelation emerged as the state government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting private health records from parents of trans youth who are considering a additional court case to its disputed prohibition on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Directive on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, issued a new order prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for trans individuals, just hours after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has interviewed four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the government made a decision to ban hormone treatments in the state. Legally, the paper must be provided under the legal statute.

Demanded Medical Details

All four were required by the Queensland health department for particulars of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their birthdate and any other evidence which supports your teen having a medical confirmation of gender identity disorder”.

The details were sought before the statement of reasons would be released.

The email, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also asked them to “please also confirm if your teen is a patient of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the data provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the email, which was dispatched recently.

Mothers Label Request as Invasion of Privacy

All four mothers described the request as an violation of confidentiality.

One parent said she was hesitant to divulge the details because the state government had accidentally sent her information to a different parent.

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

Situation of the Mother

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her teen, was one of several who asked for a statement of reasons both times.

In May, the department emailed a response meant for her to another parent, 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 by telephone; the media has obtained an email from the agency admitting the mistake.

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

“My child is very reserved. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any social setting. She dislikes anyone to know that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my core as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever disclose is out of need for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to people I deem trustworthy and I trust completely.”

Louise was especially worried about the suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the hospital.

She said the request was “threatening” and “feels threatening”.

Additional Parent Voices Worries

Another mother said she was unwilling revealing the medical history of her young gender-diverse child.

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

“To think that that data could accidentally be leaked someday, in any way, you know, although that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

She wrote back saying the agency had asked for an “excessive level of detail”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to any other organisation that requested it, particularly in the climate of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential information. You would not reveal, for instance, your medical condition to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to provide any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”

Legal Service Considering Further Action

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

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to efficiently facilitate the supply of explanations so that children and their parents can comprehend the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Position on Prohibition

The authorities has consistently said the prohibition would remain in place until a review into gender-affirming care had been finished.