🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed private details about the parent of a transgender teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her child – to a unknown individual.

Allegations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation emerged as the government was accused of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting private health records from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a additional court case to its disputed prohibition on puberty blockers.

Recent Government Directive on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive banning the use of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court ruled the initial ban was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has interviewed four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the authorities decided to ban hormone treatments in the state. Legally, the paper must be provided 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 the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any other evidence which supports your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

The details were requested before the statement of reasons 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 youth gender service so that we can confirm the data submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” states the communication, which was dispatched last Friday.

Parents Describe Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

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

One parent said she was hesitant to share the details because the state government had accidentally forwarded her data to a different parent.

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

Case of the Mother

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also identify or “out” her teen, was among those who asked for a explanation both times.

Earlier, the department emailed a reply meant for her to someone else, revealing her identity and location – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a department official later apologised over the phone; the media has seen an message from the department admitting the mistake.

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

“My child is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any public space. She doesn’t like people to be aware that she’s transgender,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my core as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever disclose is out of need for gaining access to services and only to people I consider trustworthy and I know well.”

Louise was particularly concerned about the implication it would be “confirmed” by the medical facility.

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

Additional Mother Expresses Concerns

Sally* said she was not comfortable revealing the health background of her young non-binary child.

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

“To imagine that that data could accidentally be disclosed one day, in any way, you know, even if that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

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

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

“It’s such intensely private stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to provide such details to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Legal Service Considering Further Action

The LGBTI Legal Service, which assisted the mother in her challenge, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had affected about hundreds of minors and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of reasons so that children and their parents can comprehend the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their medical care”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

The government has consistently said the ban would remain in place until a review into gender-affirming care had been completed.