🔗 Share this article

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

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure came as the government was charged of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private health records from guardians of transgender children who are considering a additional legal challenge to its controversial ban on puberty blockers.

Recent Government Order on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive banning the prescription of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Media has spoken to several parents who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the government decided to ban puberty blockers in the state. By law, the paper must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Medical Details

Each were asked by the health authorities for details of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any supporting documents which supports your teen having a medical confirmation of gender identity disorder”.

The information were requested before the explanation would be provided.

The email, which has been reviewed by the media, also asked 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 sent recently.

Parents Describe Request as Invasion of Privacy

Each parent described the request as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was hesitant to divulge the information because the state government had mistakenly sent her information to a another individual.

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

Case of Louise*

The parent, who must remain anonymous because it would also identify or expose her child, was one of several who requested a explanation on multiple occasions.

In May, the department emailed a reply 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 Guardian has seen an message from the department admitting the error.

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

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

“I honor that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever disclose is out of necessity for gaining access to supports and only to individuals I consider incredibly safe and I know well.”

The parent was especially worried about the implication it would be “verified” by the hospital.

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

Additional Parent Expresses Concerns

Another mother said she was unwilling revealing the medical history of her young non-binary child.

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

“To think that that data could inadvertently be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, although that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

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

“I would not share that information to any other organisation that requested it, particularly in the climate of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private stuff. You would not reveal, for example, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and very cautious to submit such details to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Advocacy Group Weighing Further Action

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

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about hundreds of minors and their families and it was crucial to efficiently facilitate the provision of reasons so that children and their guardians can understand the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Position on Ban

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