🔗 Share this article

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

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure came as the state government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting private health records from guardians of trans youth who are contemplating a further court case to its controversial ban on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Directive on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive banning the use of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court ruled the initial ban was unlawful.

Media has interviewed four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a formal explanation of why the government decided to prohibit puberty blockers in the state. Legally, the paper must be provided under the legal statute.

Requested Health Information

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

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

The message, which has been seen by the media, also instructed them to verify if your child is a client of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the information provided with the health service,” reads the communication, which was sent last Friday.

Mothers Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

All four mothers characterized the request as an invasion of privacy.

A mother said she was reluctant to divulge the information because the authorities had accidentally forwarded her information to a another individual.

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

Situation of the Mother

The parent, who must remain anonymous because it would also reveal or expose her child, was one of several who requested a statement of reasons on multiple occasions.

Earlier, the agency sent a response intended for her to another parent, disclosing her identity and address – and the detail that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a government employee later apologised by telephone; the Guardian has seen an message from the agency admitting the mistake.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any public space. She dislikes anyone to know that she’s trans,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever disclose is out of necessity for gaining access to supports and only to individuals I consider incredibly safe and I know well.”

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

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

Additional Parent Voices Concerns

Another mother said she was unwilling revealing the health background of her young non-binary child.

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

“To think that that data could inadvertently be disclosed someday, in any manner, 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 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 highly confidential stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your medical condition to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and very cautious to submit such details to a group of officials, essentially.”

Advocacy Group Weighing Further Action

The advocacy organization, which represented the mother in her case, was considering a second lawsuit, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was crucial to promptly enable the provision of explanations so that children and their guardians can understand the logic behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their access to healthcare”.

Authorities Position on Prohibition

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