🔗 Share this article

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

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure emerged as the state government was charged of “intimidation” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting private medical information from parents of transgender children who are contemplating a further legal challenge to its controversial prohibition on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Directive on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive prohibiting the use of hormone blockers for transgender patients, shortly after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Media has interviewed four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a formal explanation of why the government decided to prohibit hormone treatments in the region. By law, the document must be supplied under the legal statute.

Requested Medical Details

All four were required by the health authorities for particulars of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any other evidence which supports your teen having a medical confirmation of gender identity disorder”.

The details were sought before the explanation would be provided.

The email, which has been seen by the media, also instructed them to verify if your teen is a client of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the data submitted with the health service,” reads the communication, which was sent last Friday.

Parents Describe Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

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

One parent said she was hesitant to divulge the information because the state government had accidentally forwarded her information to a another individual.

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

Case of Louise*

Louise*, who must remain anonymous because it would also reveal or expose her child, was among those who requested a explanation both times.

In May, the agency sent a response intended for her to someone else, disclosing her name and location – and the detail that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a department official later apologised over the phone; the media has obtained an email from the agency admitting the error.

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

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

“I honor that to my very being as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever disclose is out of necessity for gaining access to supports and exclusively to people I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

The parent was especially worried about the suggestion it would be “verified” by the medical facility.

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

Other Parent Voices Concerns

Sally* said she was unwilling disclosing the health background of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

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

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

“I would not share that data to any other organisation that asked for it, particularly in the context of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential information. You would not reveal, for instance, 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, essentially.”

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which represented the parent in her challenge, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had impacted about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to efficiently facilitate the supply of reasons so that minors and their guardians can comprehend the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their medical care”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

The government has consistently said the prohibition would remain in place until a examination into trans healthcare had been finished.