🔗 Share this article

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

Allegations of “Bullying” and “Privacy Violation”

The revelation came as the government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential medical information from guardians of trans youth who are considering a further court case to its disputed ban on hormone blockers.

Latest Government Order on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for transgender patients, shortly after the state’s supreme court ruled the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Guardian Australia has interviewed several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a detailed account of why the government made a decision to ban puberty blockers in the state. Legally, the paper must be provided under the legal statute.

Requested Medical Details

Each were asked by the Queensland health department for particulars of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their date of birth and any other evidence which supports your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The details were sought before the explanation would be provided.

The message, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also instructed them to verify if your child is a client of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the information submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” states the email, which was dispatched recently.

Parents Label Request as Invasion of Privacy

All four mothers described the request as an invasion of privacy.

One parent said she was reluctant to share the details because the state government had accidentally sent her data to a another individual.

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

Situation of Louise*

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

In May, the department emailed a reply meant for her to another parent, disclosing her name and address – and the detail that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a department official later apologised by telephone; the Guardian has obtained an message from the department admitting the error.

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

“My child is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any public space. She dislikes people to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my core as much as possible. The only time I ever, ever share is out of need for obtaining entry to services and only to individuals I consider trustworthy and I know well.”

The parent was especially worried about the suggestion it would be “verified” by the medical facility.

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

Additional Mother Expresses Worries

Sally* said she was not comfortable disclosing the medical history of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

“To think that that information could accidentally be disclosed one day, in any manner, you know, although that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

She wrote back saying the department had asked for an “extraordinary amount of information”.

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

“It’s such highly confidential information. You would not reveal, for example, your medical condition to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and very cautious to provide such details to a group of officials, essentially.”

Legal Service Weighing Further Action

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

Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had affected about hundreds of minors and their families and it was crucial to promptly enable the supply of explanations so that minors and their guardians can understand the logic behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Government Stance on Ban

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