🔗 Share this article

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

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation emerged as the state government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private health records from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a additional legal challenge to its controversial prohibition on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Order on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order prohibiting the use of puberty blockers for trans individuals, just hours after the high court ruled the initial ban was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has interviewed 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 hormone treatments in the region. By law, the paper must be supplied under the legal statute.

Requested Medical Details

All four were asked by the Queensland health department for details of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any supporting documents which supports your child having a medical confirmation of gender dysphoria”.

The details were requested before the explanation would be provided.

The message, which has been seen by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the data provided with the health service,” states the communication, which was sent recently.

Mothers Describe Request as Breach of Confidentiality

Each parent characterized the request as an invasion of privacy.

One parent said she was hesitant to share the information because the state government had mistakenly forwarded her data to a different parent.

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

Situation of Louise*

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her teen, was one of several who asked for a explanation on multiple occasions.

In May, the agency sent a reply intended for her to another parent, revealing her name and location – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a department official later said sorry over the phone; the Guardian has obtained an message from the agency admitting the error.

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

“My child is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any social setting. She doesn’t like people to be aware that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my core as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever disclose is out of need for obtaining entry to supports and only to individuals I consider trustworthy and I know well.”

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

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

Other Parent Expresses Concerns

Another mother said she was unwilling disclosing the medical history of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

“To think that that data could accidentally be leaked someday, in any manner, you know, although that was accidental, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

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

“I wouldn’t provide that information to another entity that requested it, particularly in the context of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your medical condition to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to provide any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Advocacy Group Weighing Further Action

The advocacy organization, which assisted the mother in her case, was considering a second lawsuit, it said last week.

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

Authorities Position on Prohibition

The authorities has repeatedly said the ban would stay enforced until a examination into gender-affirming care had been finished.