🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed confidential information about the mother of a transgender teenager – information she claims potentially exposed her teen – to a stranger.

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation came as the government was accused of “intimidation” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting confidential medical information from guardians of transgender children who are considering a further legal challenge to its disputed prohibition on puberty blockers.

Latest Government Directive on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order banning the use of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court ruled the initial ban was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has interviewed four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a statement of reasons – a formal explanation of why the authorities made a decision to prohibit hormone treatments in the state. By law, the paper must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Medical Details

Each were required by the Queensland health department for details of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any other evidence which supports your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The details were sought before the explanation would be released.

The email, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can confirm the data provided with the health service,” reads the email, which was sent last Friday.

Parents Describe Request as Breach of Confidentiality

Each parent characterized the request as an invasion of privacy.

One parent said she was hesitant to divulge the details because the authorities had accidentally forwarded her information to a different parent.

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

Case of the Mother

The parent, who must remain anonymous because it would also identify or expose her child, was one of several who requested a statement of reasons both times.

Earlier, the department sent a reply intended for her to someone else, revealing her name and address – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a department official later apologised by telephone; the media has obtained an email from the agency confirming the error.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any public space. She dislikes people to be aware that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I respect that to my core as much as possible. The only time I ever, ever share is out of necessity for gaining access to supports and exclusively to individuals I consider incredibly safe and I know well.”

Louise was especially worried about the implication it would be “confirmed” by the medical facility.

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

Other Mother Voices Worries

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

“It’s not my information, it’s a seven-year-old’s details,” she said.

“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be leaked someday, in any manner, you know, even if that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”

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

“I would not share that data to any other organisation that requested it, especially in the context of the present environment,” she said.

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

Advocacy Group Weighing Further Action

The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the mother in her case, was considering a new legal action, it said last week.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had affected about hundreds of minors and their families and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of reasons so that minors and their parents can comprehend the logic behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Authorities Position on Ban

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