🔗 Share this article

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

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure came as the state government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private medical information from parents of transgender children who are considering a further legal challenge to its controversial ban on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Order on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a new order prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the state’s supreme court determined the initial ban was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has spoken to four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a legal document called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the government made a decision to ban puberty blockers in the region. By law, the document must be provided under the legal statute.

Requested Medical Details

All four were required by the health authorities for details of their teen’s health background, including “your child’s name, their date of birth and any supporting documents which supports your child having a medical confirmation of gender dysphoria”.

The details were sought before the explanation would be provided.

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

Parents Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

Each parent characterized the demand as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was hesitant to divulge the information because the state government had mistakenly sent her data to a another individual.

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

Case of Louise*

Louise*, who must remain anonymous because it would also identify or “out” her child, was one of several who asked for a statement of reasons both times.

In May, the agency sent a response intended for her to another parent, disclosing her name and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a government employee later apologised by telephone; the Guardian has seen an email from the department confirming the mistake.

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

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

“I respect that to my core as much as humanly possible. The only time I ever, ever disclose is out of necessity for gaining access to services and exclusively 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 “feels threatening”.

Other Mother Voices Worries

Another mother said she was not comfortable disclosing the health background of her young non-binary child.

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

“To think that that information could inadvertently be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

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

“I would not share that information to another entity that requested it, particularly in the climate of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to provide such details to a group of officials, essentially.”

Legal Service Considering Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which represented the mother in her challenge, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said last week.

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

Authorities Stance on Prohibition

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