🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed private details about the parent of a trans teenager – information she says potentially exposed her teen – to a unknown individual.

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation emerged as the state government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential health records from parents of transgender children who are considering a additional legal challenge to its controversial ban on hormone blockers.

Latest Official Order on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order banning the use of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court ruled the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Guardian Australia has spoken to several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation 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

Each were required by the Queensland health department for particulars of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their birthdate and any supporting documents which confirms your child 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 media, also instructed them to verify if your teen is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data submitted with the health service,” states the communication, which was sent last Friday.

Mothers Describe Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

Each parent characterized the demand as an invasion of privacy.

A mother said she was reluctant to share the information because the state government had accidentally sent her data to a another individual.

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

Case of the Mother

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also identify or “out” her child, was one of several who asked for a statement of reasons both times.

In May, the agency sent a response meant for her to someone else, revealing her identity and location – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a department official later apologised by telephone; the Guardian has seen an message from the agency admitting the error.

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

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

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

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

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

Other Parent Expresses Concerns

Another mother said she was unwilling revealing the medical history of her seven-year-old gender-diverse child.

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

“To think that that data could accidentally be leaked someday, in any manner, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

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

“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 would not reveal, for example, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to submit such details to a group of officials, essentially.”

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the mother in her case, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said last week.

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had impacted about 500 Queensland children and their families and it was “important to promptly enable the supply of explanations so that children and their parents can understand the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their medical care”.

Authorities Stance on Prohibition

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