🔗 Share this article

The state government released confidential details about the parent of a transgender teenager – information she claims potentially exposed her child – to a stranger.

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The revelation emerged as the state government was accused of “coercion” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential medical information from guardians of trans youth who are considering a further legal challenge to its disputed prohibition on hormone blockers.

Latest Official Order on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court ruled the initial ban was illegal.

Media has spoken to four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a detailed account of why the authorities made a decision to prohibit puberty blockers in the region. Legally, the paper must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Health Information

Each were required by the health authorities for particulars of their child’s medical history, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth 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 reviewed by the media, also asked them to verify if your child is a patient of the youth gender service so that we can verify the information provided with the health service,” states the email, which was dispatched last Friday.

Mothers Label Demand as Invasion of Privacy

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

A mother said she was reluctant to share the details because the state government had accidentally sent her information to a another individual.

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

Case of Louise*

Louise*, who must remain anonymous because it would also reveal or expose her child, was among those who asked for a explanation both times.

Earlier, the agency emailed a response meant for her to another parent, revealing her name and address – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the media has seen an message from the agency admitting the error.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being outed in any public space. She dislikes people to know that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as possible. The only time I ever, ever share is out of need for obtaining entry to services and only to people I deem trustworthy and I trust completely.”

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

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

Other Mother Voices Worries

Sally* said she was unwilling disclosing the medical history of her young non-binary child.

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

“To think that that data could accidentally be leaked one day, in any way, you know, although that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

She wrote back saying the department had requested an “excessive level of detail”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to another entity that requested it, especially in the climate of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private information. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to provide such details to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”

Legal Service Considering Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which assisted the mother in her challenge, 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 “important to efficiently facilitate the provision of explanations 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 Position on Prohibition

The government has consistently said the prohibition would remain in place until a examination into gender-affirming care had been finished.