🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed private information about the parent of a transgender teenager – information she claims potentially “outed” her child – to a unknown individual.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The revelation emerged as the state government was charged of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private medical information from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a further court case to its disputed prohibition on puberty blockers.

Recent Official Directive on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive banning the use of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Media has interviewed four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation 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

All four were asked by the Queensland health department for particulars of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any other evidence which confirms your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

The information were requested before the statement of reasons would be provided.

The message, which has been seen by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a client of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the email, which was dispatched last Friday.

Parents Label Request as Invasion of Privacy

Each parent characterized the demand as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was reluctant to share the details because the authorities had mistakenly sent her data to a another individual.

“It feels like having to reveal your child to obtain a response; 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 among those who asked for a explanation on multiple occasions.

In May, the agency sent a reply intended for her to someone else, revealing her identity and address – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a government employee later said sorry over the phone; the Guardian has seen an message from the department admitting the error.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any public space. She doesn’t like anyone to know that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever share is out of necessity for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to individuals I deem incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

The parent was particularly concerned about the implication it would be “confirmed” by the hospital.

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

Additional Mother Expresses Concerns

Sally* said she was unwilling revealing the medical history of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be leaked one day, in any manner, you know, although that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

She responded saying the agency had asked for an “extraordinary amount of information”.

“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 intensely private information. 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.”

Advocacy Group Considering Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which assisted the parent in her case, was considering a second lawsuit, it said last week.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of explanations so that minors and their guardians can understand the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

The authorities has repeatedly said the ban would stay enforced until a review into gender-affirming care had been completed.