🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed private details about the mother of a trans teenager – data she says potentially exposed her teen – to a unknown individual.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure emerged as the government was charged of “coercion” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting private medical information from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a additional legal challenge to its controversial prohibition on hormone blockers.

Latest Government Directive on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive banning the use of hormone blockers for transgender patients, shortly after the state’s supreme court determined the government’s first attempt was illegal.

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

Demanded Health Information

Each were asked by the Queensland health department 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 provided.

The message, which has been seen by the media, also instructed them to verify if your teen is a patient of the youth gender service so that we can verify the data submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the email, which was dispatched recently.

Mothers Describe Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

Each parent described the request as an invasion of privacy.

One parent said she was reluctant to divulge the information because the state government had mistakenly sent her information to a different parent.

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

Situation of the Mother

The parent, who must remain anonymous because it would also reveal or “out” her child, was one of several who requested a explanation both times.

Earlier, the agency emailed a response meant for her to another parent, revealing her identity and address – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the media has obtained an message from the agency admitting the mistake.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being outed in any public space. She doesn’t like anyone to know that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my core as much as possible. The only time I ever, ever disclose is out of necessity for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to people I deem trustworthy and I trust completely.”

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

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

Other Mother Voices Concerns

Sally* said she was unwilling revealing the medical history of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

“To think that that information could inadvertently be disclosed one day, in any manner, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

She responded saying the department had requested an “excessive level of detail”.

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

“It’s such highly confidential information. You would not reveal, for example, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and very cautious to submit such details to a group of officials, basically.”

Legal Service Weighing Further Action

The advocacy organization, which represented the mother in her case, was considering a new legal action, it said last week.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about hundreds of minors and their families and it was “important to promptly enable the supply of reasons so that children and their guardians can comprehend the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Government Position on Prohibition

The government has consistently said the prohibition would stay enforced until a review into gender-affirming care had been finished.