🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed confidential details about the parent of a trans teenager – data she claims potentially “outed” her teen – to a stranger.

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation came as the government was charged of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential health records from parents of transgender children who are contemplating a additional court case to its disputed prohibition on puberty blockers.

Latest Government Order on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a new order prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the high court ruled the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Guardian Australia has spoken to several parents who have approached Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the government made a decision to prohibit hormone treatments in the region. Legally, the document must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Medical Details

Each were required by the health authorities for particulars of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their date of birth and any supporting documents which confirms your child having a medical confirmation of gender dysphoria”.

The details were sought before the explanation would be released.

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

Parents Label Request as Invasion of Privacy

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

A mother said she was reluctant to share the details because the authorities had accidentally forwarded her data to a another individual.

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

Situation of Louise*

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

Earlier, the department sent a reply intended for her to someone else, disclosing her name and address – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a department official later said sorry by telephone; the Guardian has seen an email from the department admitting the error.

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

“My daughter is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any public space. She doesn’t like anyone to be aware that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my core as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever share is out of need for obtaining entry to supports and only to individuals I deem incredibly safe and I know well.”

Louise was especially worried about the suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the hospital.

She said the request was “threatening” and “feels threatening”.

Other Mother Voices Concerns

Sally* said she was not comfortable revealing the medical history of her young gender-diverse child.

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

“To imagine that that data could accidentally be leaked someday, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

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

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

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to submit such details to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the mother in her case, was considering 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 explanations so that children and their guardians can understand the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their access to healthcare”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

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