🔗 Share this article

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

Allegations of “Bullying” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure emerged 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 court case to its disputed prohibition on hormone blockers.

Latest Government Directive on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Media has interviewed several parents who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a detailed account of why the authorities decided to prohibit puberty blockers in the state. By law, the paper must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Health Information

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

The details were sought before the explanation would be released.

The email, which has been seen by the media, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a client of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can confirm the information provided with the health service,” states the email, which was dispatched recently.

Parents Label Request as Invasion of Privacy

Each parent characterized the request as an invasion of privacy.

One parent said she was hesitant to share the details because the state government had accidentally sent her data 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 the Mother

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also identify or expose her teen, was among those who asked for a explanation both times.

Earlier, the agency emailed a response meant for her to someone else, disclosing her name and location – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a department official later said sorry over the phone; the Guardian has seen an email from the department confirming the error.

She said she felt “ill and vulnerable” 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 very being as much as possible. The only time I ever share is out of necessity for obtaining entry to supports and exclusively to individuals I deem incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

The parent was particularly concerned about the suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the medical facility.

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

Other Parent Expresses Concerns

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

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

“To imagine that that information could accidentally be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, even if that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

She responded saying the department had asked for an “extraordinary amount of information”.

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

“It’s such highly confidential information. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to provide any of that information to a group of officials, essentially.”

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

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

Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted 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 reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Government Stance on Ban

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