🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government released private details about the parent of a transgender teenager – information she says potentially exposed her child – to a stranger.

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation emerged as the state government was accused of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting confidential medical information from guardians of transgender children who are considering a further legal challenge to its disputed ban on hormone blockers.

Latest Government Order on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive prohibiting the use of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court determined the initial ban was illegal.

Media has interviewed four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the government made a decision to ban puberty blockers in the state. By law, the document must be provided under the legal statute.

Demanded Medical Details

All four were asked by the health authorities for particulars of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any other evidence which confirms your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

The information were sought before the explanation would be provided.

The email, which has been seen by the media, also instructed them to verify if your teen 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 dispatched last Friday.

Parents Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

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

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

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

Case of the Mother

Louise*, who must remain anonymous because it would also reveal or “out” her teen, was one of several who asked for a statement of reasons on multiple occasions.

Earlier, the agency sent a response intended for her to another parent, disclosing her identity and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a government employee later apologised by telephone; the media has seen an message from the department confirming the error.

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

“My child is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any social setting. She dislikes people to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I honor that to my very being as much as humanly 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 trust completely.”

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

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

Additional Mother Expresses Worries

Another mother said she was not comfortable disclosing the medical history of her young non-binary child.

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

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

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

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

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

Advocacy Group Considering Further Action

The LGBTI Legal Service, which assisted the parent in her challenge, was considering a second lawsuit, it said last week.

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about hundreds of minors and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of reasons so that minors and their guardians can understand the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Authorities Stance on Ban

The government has consistently said the prohibition would stay enforced until a review into gender-affirming care had been finished.