🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government released confidential information about the parent of a trans teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her child – to a stranger.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure came as the government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private medical information from parents of transgender children who are considering a further legal challenge to its controversial ban on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Directive on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court ruled the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Media has spoken to several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the government decided to ban hormone treatments in the region. By law, the document must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Health Information

Each were required by the Queensland health department for details 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 information were sought before the explanation would be released.

The message, which has been seen by the Guardian, also asked them to verify if your teen is a client of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the communication, which was dispatched recently.

Parents Describe Request as Invasion of Privacy

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

One parent said she was hesitant to divulge the details because the state government had mistakenly sent her information to a different parent.

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

Situation of the Mother

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her teen, was one of several who requested a statement of reasons on multiple occasions.

Earlier, the department emailed a response meant for her to another parent, revealing her identity and address – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a department official later apologised by telephone; the media has obtained an message from the agency confirming the error.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any public space. She dislikes anyone to be aware that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever share is out of need for gaining access to services and only to individuals I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

Louise was especially worried about the suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the medical facility.

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

Other Parent Expresses Worries

Sally* said she was unwilling disclosing the medical history of her young gender-diverse child.

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

“To think that that data could inadvertently be leaked one day, in any manner, you know, although that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

She wrote back saying the agency had requested an “excessive level of detail”.

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

“It’s such intensely private stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to submit such details to a group of officials, basically.”

Legal Service Considering Second Lawsuit

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

Its president, Ren Shike, said the decision had impacted about hundreds of minors and their families and it was crucial to promptly enable the supply of explanations so that children and their parents can comprehend the logic behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Position on Ban

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