🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed confidential information about the parent of a transgender teenager – data she claims potentially “outed” her teen – to a stranger.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure came as the state government was accused of “intimidation” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting private medical information from parents of trans youth who are contemplating a further court case to its disputed ban on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Order on Puberty Blockers

Last month, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive banning the use of puberty blockers for trans individuals, just hours after the state’s supreme court ruled the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Media has spoken to several parents 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 puberty blockers in the state. By law, the paper must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Health Information

All four were required by the health authorities for particulars of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their birthdate 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 Guardian, also asked them to verify if your teen is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can confirm the information submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the communication, which was sent recently.

Mothers Label Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

All four mothers described the request as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was reluctant to divulge the details because the authorities had accidentally forwarded her information to a different parent.

“It feels like having to ‘out’ your teen to obtain a reply; like, it’s terrifying,” she said.

Case of Louise*

The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also identify or “out” her teen, was among those who requested a explanation both times.

Earlier, the department emailed a reply meant for her to another parent, revealing her name and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a department official later apologised over the phone; the media has obtained an email from the agency admitting the mistake.

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

“My daughter is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any public space. She doesn’t like anyone to know that she’s transgender,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever share is out of necessity for obtaining entry to services and only to people I deem trustworthy and I know well.”

The parent was especially worried about the implication it would be “verified” by the hospital.

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

Other Parent Expresses Worries

Another mother said she was not comfortable revealing the medical history of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

“To imagine that that data could inadvertently be leaked one day, in any manner, you know, although that was accidental, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

She wrote back saying the agency had asked for an “excessive level of detail”.

“I would not share that data to another entity that requested it, particularly in the context of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to submit any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”

Advocacy Group Considering Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which represented the parent in her challenge, was evaluating a new legal action, it said last week.

The head, Ren Shike, said the ruling had affected about 500 Queensland children and their families and it was crucial to promptly enable the provision of explanations so that children and their parents can comprehend the logic behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their medical care”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

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