🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed confidential information about the parent of a transgender teenager – information she says potentially “outed” 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 medical information from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a further court case to its controversial prohibition on hormone blockers.

Latest Official Order on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive banning the use of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court determined the initial ban was illegal.

Guardian Australia has spoken to four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the authorities decided to prohibit puberty blockers in the state. By law, the document must be supplied under the legal statute.

Requested Medical Details

All four were asked by the Queensland health department for details of their child’s medical history, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any supporting documents which confirms your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

The details were sought before the statement of reasons would be released.

The email, which has been reviewed by the media, also instructed them to verify if your child is a client of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the data submitted with the health service,” states the communication, which was dispatched recently.

Parents Describe Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

All four mothers described the demand as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was hesitant to divulge the details because the authorities had mistakenly sent her information to a different parent.

“It seems like having to reveal your teen to actually get a reply; like, it’s frightening,” she said.

Case of the Mother

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

In May, the agency sent a response meant for her to another parent, disclosing her identity and address – and the detail that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the Guardian has seen an message from the agency admitting the mistake.

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

“My child is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being outed in any public space. She dislikes people to know that she’s trans,” the mother 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 supports and exclusively to people I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

Louise was especially worried about the implication it would be “verified” by the medical facility.

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

Additional Parent Expresses Worries

Another mother said she was not comfortable revealing the health background of her seven-year-old gender-diverse child.

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

“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

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

“I wouldn’t provide that data to any other organisation that asked for it, particularly in the context of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private information. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to submit such details to a group of officials, basically.”

Legal Service Considering Further Action

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

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to efficiently facilitate the supply of explanations so that children and their parents can understand the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Authorities Stance on Prohibition

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