🔗 Share this article

The state government released confidential details about the mother 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 accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential health records from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a additional legal challenge to its controversial prohibition on hormone blockers.

Recent Government Directive on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive prohibiting the use of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court ruled the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has spoken to four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the government made a decision to prohibit puberty blockers in the state. Legally, the paper must be supplied under the legal statute.

Demanded Medical Details

All four were asked 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 confirms your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The details were requested before the explanation would be released.

The email, which has been seen by the media, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the information provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the communication, which was sent recently.

Parents Describe Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

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

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

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

Situation of Louise*

Louise*, who must remain anonymous because it would also identify or “out” her child, was among those who requested a explanation both times.

Earlier, the agency sent a reply meant for her to someone else, disclosing her name and location – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a department official later said sorry over the phone; the Guardian has obtained an email from the department confirming the error.

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

“My child is very reserved. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any social setting. She dislikes people to be aware that she’s transgender,” the mother said.

“I honor that to my core as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever share is out of need for gaining access to services and only to people I deem incredibly safe and I know well.”

Louise was particularly concerned about the suggestion it would be “verified” by the medical facility.

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

Additional Mother Expresses Concerns

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

“It’s not my information, it’s a child’s information,” she said.

“To imagine that that data could accidentally be disclosed one day, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

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

“I would not share that data to another entity 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 provide any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”

Legal Service Considering Second Lawsuit

The LGBTI Legal Service, which assisted the parent in her case, was considering a second lawsuit, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their families and it was crucial to efficiently facilitate the supply of reasons so that children and their parents can understand the logic behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their medical care”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

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