🔗 Share this article

The state government released private details about the mother of a transgender teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her child – to a unknown individual.

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation came as the government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential medical information from guardians of trans youth who are considering a additional court case to its controversial prohibition on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Order on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, issued a new order prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for transgender patients, shortly after the state’s supreme court ruled the initial ban was illegal.

Media has spoken to four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a detailed account of why the government made a decision to prohibit puberty blockers in the state. By law, the paper must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Health Information

Each were required by the health authorities for details of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their birthdate and any supporting documents which confirms your child having a medical confirmation of gender dysphoria”.

The information were requested before the explanation would be released.

The email, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also instructed them to verify if your teen is a client of the youth gender service so that we can verify the information provided with the health service,” states the email, which was dispatched last Friday.

Mothers Label Demand as Invasion of Privacy

All four mothers characterized the demand as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was hesitant to share the information because the state government had accidentally sent her information to a another individual.

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

Case of the Mother

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her teen, was among those who asked for a statement of reasons both times.

In May, the agency emailed a response meant for her to someone else, revealing her name and address – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a third party. She said a government employee later apologised by telephone; the Guardian has seen an message from the department confirming the mistake.

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

“My daughter is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any social setting. She doesn’t like anyone to know that she’s trans,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever disclose is out of need for obtaining entry to supports and exclusively to people I deem incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

Louise was particularly concerned about the suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the hospital.

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

Other Parent Voices Worries

Another mother said she was not comfortable revealing the medical history of her young gender-diverse child.

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

“To think that that data could accidentally be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, although that was accidental, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

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

“I would not share that information to any other organisation that asked for it, particularly in the context of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You would not reveal, for example, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to provide any of that information to a group of officials, essentially.”

Advocacy Group Considering Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which assisted the mother in her case, 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 understand the logic behind this ruling, 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 trans healthcare had been completed.