🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed confidential details about the mother of a transgender teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her child – to a unknown individual.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure emerged as the state government was charged of “coercion” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting confidential health records from parents of transgender children who are considering a additional court case to its controversial ban on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Directive on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, issued a new order prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for trans individuals, just hours after the high court ruled the government’s first attempt was illegal.

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 authorities made a decision to ban puberty blockers in the region. Legally, the document must be provided under the legal statute.

Demanded Health Information

Each were required by the health authorities for details of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their birthdate and any other evidence which confirms your child having a medical confirmation of gender dysphoria”.

The information were requested before the explanation would be released.

The message, which has been seen by the Guardian, 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,” states the communication, which was dispatched last Friday.

Mothers Label Request as Breach of Confidentiality

Each parent characterized the demand as an invasion of privacy.

One parent said she was reluctant to divulge the information because the state government had mistakenly sent her information to a another individual.

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

Case of the Mother

The parent, who must remain anonymous because it would also reveal or expose her teen, was one of several who asked for a explanation both times.

Earlier, the agency emailed a reply intended for her to someone else, revealing her name and address – and the detail that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the Guardian has obtained an email from the agency confirming the mistake.

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

“My child is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any social setting. 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, ever share is out of need for gaining access to services and only to people I deem trustworthy and I know well.”

The parent was particularly concerned about the suggestion it would be “verified” by the hospital.

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

Additional Parent Voices Worries

Sally* said she was not comfortable revealing the health background of her young non-binary child.

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

“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, although that was accidental, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

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

“I would not share that information to any other organisation that requested it, especially in the context of the present environment,” she said.

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

Legal Service Considering Further Action

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

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had affected about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of reasons so that minors and their guardians can comprehend the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Position on Prohibition

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