🔗 Share this article

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

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure came as the state government was accused of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting private health records from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a additional court case to its controversial prohibition on hormone blockers.

Recent Government Directive on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order prohibiting the use of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Guardian Australia has interviewed several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the authorities decided to ban puberty blockers in the state. By law, the paper must be supplied under the legal statute.

Demanded Medical Details

All four were required by the Queensland health department for particulars of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any other evidence 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 message, which has been seen by the media, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your teen is a client of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the data provided with the health service,” reads the communication, which was dispatched last Friday.

Parents Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

Each parent characterized the request as an invasion of privacy.

A mother said she was reluctant to share the information because the state government had accidentally forwarded her data to a different parent.

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

Situation of Louise*

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or expose her teen, was one of several who asked for a explanation both times.

Earlier, the agency sent a response intended 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 apologised by telephone; the media has obtained an message from the agency confirming the mistake.

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

“My child is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any social setting. She doesn’t like people to be aware that she’s trans,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever share is out of need for gaining access to supports and only to individuals I consider trustworthy and I trust completely.”

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

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

Additional Parent Expresses Concerns

Another mother said she was not comfortable revealing the medical history of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

“To imagine that that information could accidentally be leaked someday, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

She responded saying the agency had requested an “excessive level of detail”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to another entity that asked for it, particularly in the context of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private information. You would not reveal, for instance, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to provide any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”

Legal Service Considering Further Action

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

Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had affected about 500 Queensland children and their families and it was “important to promptly enable the supply of explanations so that children and their guardians can understand the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their medical care”.

Authorities Stance on Prohibition

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