🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed confidential information about the mother of a trans teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her teen – to a stranger.

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation came as the state government was charged of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting confidential health records from parents of trans youth who are considering a additional court case to its controversial prohibition on puberty blockers.

Recent Government Order on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, issued a new order banning the use of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court determined the initial ban was unlawful.

Media has spoken to four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the authorities made a decision to ban puberty blockers in the region. By law, the paper must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Health Information

All four were required 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 information were requested before the explanation would be provided.

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

Parents Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

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

A mother said she was hesitant to share the details because the authorities had mistakenly sent her information to a another individual.

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

Case of the Mother

The parent, who must remain anonymous because it would also identify or “out” her teen, was one of several who requested a explanation on multiple occasions.

Earlier, the agency emailed a response intended for her to another parent, disclosing her name and location – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a department official later said sorry by telephone; the media has seen an email from the department admitting the error.

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

“My child is incredibly private. She is deeply afraid of being outed in any public space. She doesn’t like people to know that she’s trans,” 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 services and only to individuals I deem trustworthy and I trust completely.”

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

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

Additional Parent Expresses Worries

Sally* said she was unwilling revealing 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 accidentally be leaked someday, in any way, you know, although that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

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

“I wouldn’t provide that information to any other organisation that asked for it, especially in the context of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private information. You would not reveal, for example, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to submit such details to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Legal Service Considering Second Lawsuit

The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the mother in her case, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about hundreds of minors and their families and it was crucial to efficiently facilitate the supply 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 Stance on Prohibition

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