🔗 Share this article

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

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation emerged as the state government was charged of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting private medical information from parents of trans youth who are considering a additional court case to its disputed prohibition on puberty blockers.

Recent Government Order on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order prohibiting the use of hormone blockers for transgender patients, shortly after the high court determined the initial ban was unlawful.

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

Demanded Health Information

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

The details were requested before the statement of reasons would be provided.

The message, which has been reviewed by the media, also asked them to “please also confirm if your teen is a client of the youth gender service so that we can verify the data provided with the health service,” reads the communication, which was sent recently.

Mothers Label Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

Each parent characterized the request as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was hesitant to share 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 Louise*

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or expose her child, was among those who asked for a explanation both times.

Earlier, the agency emailed a reply meant for her to another parent, disclosing her name and location – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a department official later said sorry by telephone; the Guardian has seen an message from the agency confirming the error.

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

“My daughter is incredibly private. She is deeply afraid of being outed in any public space. She doesn’t like anyone to be aware that she’s trans,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my core as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever share is out of necessity for obtaining entry to supports and exclusively to people I deem trustworthy and I trust completely.”

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

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

Other Mother Voices Concerns

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

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

“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be disclosed one day, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

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

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

“It’s such intensely private information. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your medical condition to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to provide any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Advocacy Group Weighing Further Action

The advocacy organization, which represented the mother in her case, was evaluating 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 explanations so that children and their parents can comprehend the logic behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Stance on Prohibition

The authorities has repeatedly said the ban would stay enforced until a review into gender-affirming care had been finished.