🔗 Share this article

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

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure came as the state government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential medical information from parents of transgender children who are contemplating a additional legal challenge to its controversial ban on hormone blockers.

Recent Government Directive on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive banning the use of puberty blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the high court determined the initial ban was illegal.

Guardian Australia has interviewed several parents who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the government decided to ban hormone treatments in the region. By law, the paper must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Medical Details

Each 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 child 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 Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” states the email, which was dispatched recently.

Mothers Label Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

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

One parent said she was reluctant to divulge the details because the authorities had mistakenly sent her data to a different parent.

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

Case of Louise*

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

In May, the department sent a reply intended 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 over the phone; the media has obtained an message from the department admitting the mistake.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any social setting. She dislikes anyone to know that she’s trans,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my core as much as humanly possible. The only time I ever, ever share is out of need for gaining access to supports and only to individuals I deem incredibly safe and I know well.”

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

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

Additional Mother Expresses Worries

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

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

“To imagine that that information could accidentally be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, although that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

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

“I wouldn’t provide that information to any other organisation that requested it, especially in the context of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and very cautious to submit any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”

Legal Service Considering 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 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to efficiently facilitate the provision 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”.

Government Position on Prohibition

The government has repeatedly said the prohibition would remain in place until a examination into gender-affirming care had been completed.