🔗 Share this article

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

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation came as the government was accused of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting confidential medical information from guardians of transgender children who are contemplating a further legal challenge to its controversial prohibition on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Directive on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive banning the prescription of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court determined the initial ban was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has spoken to four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the authorities decided to prohibit hormone treatments in the region. By law, the document must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Health Information

Each were required by the health authorities for details of their teen’s health background, including “your child’s name, their birthdate and any other evidence which confirms your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

The information were requested before the statement of reasons would be provided.

The email, which has been seen by the Guardian, also asked them to “please also confirm if your teen is a patient of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the information provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the email, which was sent last Friday.

Parents Label Request as Invasion of Privacy

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

A mother said she was hesitant to divulge the information because the state government had mistakenly forwarded her information to a different parent.

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

Case of the Mother

Louise*, who must remain anonymous because it would also identify or expose her teen, was one of several who requested a statement of reasons both times.

In May, the department sent a response intended for her to another parent, disclosing her name and location – and the detail that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a government employee later apologised by telephone; the media has seen an email from the department confirming the mistake.

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

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

“I respect that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever share is out of need for gaining access to supports and only to individuals I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

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

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

Other Parent Expresses Concerns

Another mother said she was not comfortable disclosing the health background of her young non-binary child.

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

“To imagine that that data could inadvertently be leaked one day, in any manner, you know, although that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

She wrote back saying the department had asked for an “excessive level of detail”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to another entity that asked for it, particularly in the climate of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to provide such details to a group of officials, basically.”

Advocacy Group Considering Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which assisted the parent in her challenge, was evaluating a new legal action, it said last week.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their families and it was “important to efficiently facilitate the provision of explanations so that minors and their guardians can understand the logic behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

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