🔗 Share this article

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

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Privacy Violation”

The revelation emerged as the government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private medical information from guardians of transgender children who are contemplating a additional court case to its controversial prohibition on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Directive on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the high court ruled the initial ban was illegal.

Media has spoken to four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the government made a decision to prohibit hormone treatments in the state. By law, the paper must be supplied under the legal statute.

Demanded Medical Details

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

The details were requested 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 client of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the information provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” states the communication, which was dispatched recently.

Parents Label Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

All four mothers described the demand as an invasion of privacy.

One parent said she was hesitant to share the details because the authorities had mistakenly sent her data to a different parent.

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

Case of Louise*

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

Earlier, the agency sent a response intended for her to someone else, disclosing her name and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a government employee later said sorry over the phone; the media has seen an message from the agency confirming the mistake.

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

“My child is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being outed in any social setting. She dislikes anyone to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I honor that to my core as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever disclose is out of necessity for obtaining entry to supports and exclusively to individuals I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

Louise was especially worried about the suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the hospital.

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

Additional Mother Expresses Worries

Sally* said she was unwilling disclosing the health background of her seven-year-old gender-diverse child.

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

“To imagine that that data could inadvertently be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

She responded 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 current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private stuff. You would not reveal, for instance, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and very cautious to submit such details to a bunch of bureaucrats, basically.”

Legal Service Considering Further Action

The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the parent in her case, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said last week.

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

Government Stance on Prohibition

The authorities has repeatedly said the ban would remain in place until a review into trans healthcare had been completed.