🔗 Share this article

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

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure came as the state government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting private medical information from parents of transgender children who are contemplating a further court case to its controversial ban on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Order on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the high court determined the initial ban was illegal.

Guardian Australia has spoken to several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the government decided to prohibit puberty blockers in the state. Legally, the document must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Medical Details

All four were asked by the Queensland health department for particulars of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any supporting documents which supports your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

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

The email, which has been seen by the Guardian, also asked them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data provided with the health service,” states the communication, which was dispatched recently.

Mothers Label Demand as Invasion of Privacy

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

One parent said she was hesitant to divulge the information because the state government had accidentally sent her data to a another individual.

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

Case of Louise*

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her teen, was one of several who asked for a explanation on multiple occasions.

In May, the department emailed a response intended for her to another parent, disclosing her identity and address – and the detail that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the Guardian has seen an message from the department admitting the mistake.

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

“My daughter is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any public space. She dislikes people to know that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my core as much as possible. The only time I ever disclose is out of necessity for obtaining entry to supports and only to individuals I deem trustworthy and I trust completely.”

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

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

Other Parent Voices Worries

Another mother said she was not comfortable revealing the health background of her seven-year-old gender-diverse child.

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

“To imagine that that information could accidentally be disclosed one day, in any manner, you know, even if that was accidental, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

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

“I would not share that information to another entity that asked for it, particularly in the climate of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You would not reveal, for example, your medical condition to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to provide such details to a group of officials, essentially.”

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which represented the mother in her case, was considering 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 “important to efficiently facilitate the provision of reasons so that minors and their parents can understand the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Authorities Position on Prohibition

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