🔗 Share this article

The state government released private information about the parent of a transgender teenager – information she says potentially exposed her teen – to a stranger.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure came as the government was accused of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting confidential health records from guardians of transgender children who are contemplating 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 use of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court ruled the initial ban was unlawful.

Media has spoken to several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the authorities decided to prohibit hormone treatments in the state. Legally, the paper must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Health Information

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

The information were sought before the explanation would be provided.

The email, which has been seen by the media, also asked them to verify if your teen is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the information provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the email, which was dispatched last Friday.

Mothers Label Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

Each parent characterized the request as an violation of confidentiality.

One parent said she was hesitant to divulge the information because the authorities had mistakenly sent her information to a another individual.

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

Case of Louise*

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her child, was one of several who requested a explanation both times.

In May, the agency sent a response intended for her to another parent, revealing her name and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the media has obtained an message from the agency confirming the error.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any social setting. She doesn’t like anyone to be aware that she’s trans,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my core as much as humanly possible. The only time I ever, ever disclose is out of need for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to people I deem trustworthy and I know well.”

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

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

Other Mother 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 seven-year-old’s information,” she said.

“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be disclosed one day, in any way, you know, although that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

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

“I wouldn’t provide that information to another entity that requested it, especially in the climate of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You would not reveal, for instance, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to provide such details to a group of officials, basically.”

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

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

Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about hundreds of minors and their families and it was crucial to promptly enable the supply of reasons so that minors and their parents can understand the logic behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Position on Prohibition

The authorities has repeatedly said the prohibition would remain in place until a review into gender-affirming care had been completed.