🔗 Share this article

The state government released confidential information about the parent of a transgender teenager – data she says potentially exposed her teen – to a unknown individual.

Allegations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation emerged as the government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting confidential medical information from guardians of trans youth who are contemplating a further legal challenge to its disputed prohibition on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Directive on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court determined the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Media has spoken to four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the authorities decided to prohibit puberty blockers in the state. By law, the paper 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 supports your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

The details were sought before the explanation would be released.

The message, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also asked them to “please also confirm if your teen is a client of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data submitted with the health service,” states the communication, which was sent recently.

Parents Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

All four mothers characterized the demand as an invasion of privacy.

A mother said she was hesitant to share the information because the state government had mistakenly sent her data to a different parent.

“It feels like having to ‘out’ your teen 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 expose her child, was among those who asked for a explanation on multiple occasions.

In May, the department sent a response intended for her to another parent, disclosing her identity and address – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a department official later said sorry by telephone; the media has obtained an email from the department admitting 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 people to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as possible. The only time I ever, ever disclose 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 suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the hospital.

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

Other Mother Expresses Worries

Sally* said she was not comfortable revealing the health background of her seven-year-old gender-diverse child.

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

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

She responded saying the department had asked for an “excessive level of detail”.

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

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You would not reveal, for example, your medical condition 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, basically.”

Legal Service Considering Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which represented the mother in her challenge, was considering a second lawsuit, it said recently.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the decision had impacted about hundreds of minors and their families and it was crucial to efficiently facilitate the supply of explanations so that minors and their guardians can comprehend the logic behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Stance on Ban

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