🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed confidential information about the mother of a transgender teenager – information she says potentially “outed” her child – to a unknown individual.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure emerged as the government was charged of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting confidential health records from parents of transgender children who are contemplating a additional court case to its controversial ban on hormone blockers.

Latest Official Order on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order prohibiting the use of puberty blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the high court ruled the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Media has spoken to several parents who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a formal explanation of why the authorities decided to ban hormone treatments in the state. By law, the document must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Medical Details

All four were asked by the Queensland health department for details of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their date of birth and any other evidence which confirms your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

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

The email, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your teen is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can confirm the data provided with the health service,” reads the communication, which was dispatched last Friday.

Parents Label Request as Invasion of Privacy

All four mothers described the demand as an violation of confidentiality.

One parent said she was reluctant to share the information because the authorities had accidentally 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.

Case of Louise*

Louise*, who must remain anonymous because it would also reveal or expose her child, was one of several who asked for a statement of reasons on multiple occasions.

Earlier, the agency emailed a response intended for her to another parent, revealing her identity and location – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a department official later apologised over the phone; the media has seen an email from the agency admitting the error.

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

“My daughter is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any public space. She dislikes anyone to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever share is out of necessity for obtaining entry to supports and exclusively to people I consider trustworthy and I know well.”

Louise was particularly concerned about the suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the hospital.

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

Other Mother Expresses Concerns

Another mother said she was unwilling disclosing the health background of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

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

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

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

“It’s such highly confidential information. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and very cautious to submit any of that information to a group of officials, basically.”

Legal Service Weighing Further Action

The advocacy organization, which represented the mother in her case, was evaluating 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 efficiently facilitate the supply of explanations so that minors and their guardians can comprehend the logic behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Government Position on Ban

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