🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed private details about the parent of a trans teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her teen – to a stranger.

Accusations of “Intimidation” and “Invasion of Privacy”

The disclosure emerged as the state government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding confidential medical information from guardians of transgender children who are considering a additional court case to its disputed prohibition on hormone blockers.

Latest Official Directive on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order banning the prescription of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the state’s supreme court determined the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Media has spoken to several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a formal explanation of why the authorities decided to ban hormone treatments in the state. By law, the document must be supplied under the legal statute.

Demanded Health Information

All four were asked 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 identity disorder”.

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

The email, which has been reviewed by the media, also asked them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the email, which was dispatched recently.

Parents Label 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 details because the state government had accidentally forwarded her information to a another individual.

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

Case of the Mother

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her child, was among those who requested a explanation both times.

In May, the department emailed a response meant for her to another parent, disclosing her name and address – and the fact that she had a trans teen – to a stranger. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the media has seen an message from the department confirming the error.

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

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

“I honor that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The only time I ever, ever disclose is out of necessity for gaining access to supports and exclusively to people I deem trustworthy and I know well.”

The parent was particularly concerned about the implication it would be “verified” by the medical facility.

She said the request was “intimidating” and “seems coercive”.

Additional Parent Expresses Worries

Another mother said she was not comfortable disclosing the medical history of her seven-year-old gender-diverse child.

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

“To think that that information could inadvertently be disclosed someday, in any manner, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

She responded saying the agency had requested an “extraordinary amount of information”.

“I wouldn’t provide that information to another entity that requested it, particularly in the context of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such intensely private information. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and very cautious to submit any of that information to a group of officials, basically.”

Legal Service Weighing Further Action

The advocacy organization, which assisted the parent in her case, was considering a second lawsuit, it said last week.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of explanations so that minors and their parents can understand the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Authorities Position on Prohibition

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