🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed private details about the parent of a transgender teenager – data she says potentially “outed” her teen – to a unknown individual.

Allegations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure came as the government was charged of “intimidation” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting confidential health records from guardians of transgender children who are contemplating a additional legal challenge to its disputed prohibition on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Order on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive banning the use of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the state’s supreme court ruled the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Media has spoken to four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a detailed account of why the authorities decided to ban puberty blockers in the region. By law, the document must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Health Information

All four were required by the Queensland health department for particulars of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any supporting documents which supports your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The details were requested before the explanation would be provided.

The message, which has been seen by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data provided with the health service,” states the email, 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 forwarded her data to a another individual.

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

Case of Louise*

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or expose her child, was one of several who requested a explanation both times.

In May, the department sent a reply intended for her to someone else, revealing her identity and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a department official later said sorry by telephone; the Guardian has obtained an message from the department admitting the error.

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

“My daughter is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any social setting. She dislikes anyone to be aware that she’s transgender,” the mother said.

“I honor that to my very being as much as possible. The only time I ever share is out of need for obtaining entry to supports and only to individuals I deem incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

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

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

Other Parent Expresses Worries

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

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

“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be leaked someday, in any manner, you know, although that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

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

“I would not share that data to another entity that requested it, particularly in the context of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. 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 provide any of that information to a group of officials, essentially.”

Legal Service Considering Second Lawsuit

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

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about hundreds of minors and their families and it was crucial to promptly enable the supply of explanations so that minors and their parents can understand the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Government Position on Ban

The authorities has consistently said the ban would stay enforced until a examination into trans healthcare had been finished.