🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed confidential information about the mother of a transgender teenager – data she claims potentially “outed” her child – to a unknown individual.

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure emerged as the government was accused of “coercion” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting private health records from guardians of transgender children who are considering a further court case to its controversial prohibition on hormone blockers.

Recent Government Order on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court determined the initial ban was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has interviewed four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the authorities decided to ban puberty blockers in the region. Legally, the paper must be supplied under the legal statute.

Requested Health Information

Each were required by the Queensland health department 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 clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

The details were sought before the statement of reasons would be released.

The email, which has been seen by the media, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a client of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the information provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the communication, which was dispatched last Friday.

Mothers Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

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

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

“It seems like having to reveal your teen to obtain a response; like, it’s frightening,” she said.

Case of the Mother

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also identify or “out” her teen, was among those who requested a statement of reasons both times.

In May, the agency emailed a reply meant for her to another parent, disclosing her name and location – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a government employee later said sorry over the phone; the Guardian has obtained an message from the agency confirming the mistake.

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

“My child is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any public space. She dislikes people to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I honor that to my core as much as possible. The only time I ever disclose is out of need for gaining access to supports and only to individuals I deem trustworthy and I trust completely.”

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

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

Other Parent Voices Concerns

Sally* said she was unwilling revealing the health background 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 data could accidentally be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, although that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

She responded saying the agency had requested an “excessive level of detail”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to any other organisation that requested it, particularly in the climate of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private information. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to submit such details to a group of officials, essentially.”

Advocacy Group Considering Further Action

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

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had affected about 500 Queensland children and their families and it was “important to efficiently facilitate the supply of reasons so that minors and their parents can understand the logic behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Stance on Prohibition

The government has consistently said the prohibition would stay enforced until a review into gender-affirming care had been completed.