🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed confidential details about the mother of a trans teenager – information she claims potentially exposed her teen – to a stranger.

Allegations of “Bullying” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure emerged as the state government was accused of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting private health records from guardians of transgender children who are contemplating a additional court case to its disputed prohibition on hormone blockers.

Latest Government Order on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order banning the use of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

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 prohibit puberty blockers in the state. Legally, the paper must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Medical Details

All four were required by the health authorities for details of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any other evidence which supports your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

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

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

Parents Label Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

All four mothers characterized the demand 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 teen to obtain a reply; like, it’s terrifying,” she said.

Case of Louise*

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

In May, the agency emailed a reply meant for her to someone else, revealing her name and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a department official later apologised by telephone; the media has seen an email from the department admitting the mistake.

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

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

“I honor that to my core as much as humanly possible. The only time I ever, ever disclose is out of necessity for gaining access to services and only to individuals I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

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

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

Additional Parent Expresses Concerns

Sally* said she was not comfortable disclosing 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 think that that data could accidentally be leaked one day, in any manner, you know, even if that was accidental, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

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

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

“It’s such highly confidential information. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to submit any of that information to a group of officials, basically.”

Legal Service Weighing Further Action

The LGBTI Legal Service, which assisted the mother in her challenge, was considering a new legal action, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was crucial to efficiently facilitate the supply of explanations so that minors and their guardians can comprehend the logic behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Government Stance on Ban

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