The Queensland government released confidential information about the mother of a trans teenager – information she says potentially “outed” her child – to a unknown individual.
The disclosure emerged as the government was charged of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after requesting private medical information from guardians of transgender children who are contemplating a further legal challenge to its disputed ban on hormone blockers.
Recently, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive banning the prescription of hormone blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was unlawful.
Guardian Australia has spoken to several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the government decided to prohibit hormone treatments in the state. Legally, the paper must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.
Each were asked by the Queensland health department for particulars of their child’s medical history, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any supporting documents which supports your child having a medical confirmation of gender identity disorder”.
The information were sought before the statement of reasons would be released.
The message, which has been seen by the media, also asked them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the information provided with the health service,” reads the email, which was sent last Friday.
All four mothers characterized the demand as an invasion of privacy.
One parent said she was reluctant to divulge the information because the state government had mistakenly sent her information to a different parent.
“It feels like having to ‘out’ your teen to obtain a response; like, it’s frightening,” she said.
The parent, who cannot be legally identified because it would also identify or expose her teen, was among those who asked for a explanation on multiple occasions.
In May, the agency sent a reply meant for her to another parent, disclosing her identity and location – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a department official later said sorry by telephone; the media has obtained an message from the agency admitting the mistake.
She said she felt “ill and vulnerable” as a consequence of the error.
“My daughter is incredibly private. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any public space. She dislikes people to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.
“I respect that to my core as much as humanly possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever disclose is out of necessity for gaining access to supports and exclusively to individuals I deem incredibly safe and I know well.”
The parent was particularly concerned about the suggestion it would be “verified” by the hospital.
She said the request was “threatening” and “seems coercive”.
Sally* said she was unwilling revealing the health background of her seven-year-old gender-diverse child.
“It’s not my information, it’s a child’s information,” she said.
“To think that that information could accidentally be disclosed one day, in any manner, you know, although that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to them.”
She responded saying the department had asked for an “excessive level of detail”.
“I wouldn’t provide that information to another entity that asked for it, particularly in the climate of the current political climate,” she said.
“It’s such intensely private stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to submit any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”
The advocacy organization, which represented the parent in her challenge, was evaluating a new legal action, it said last week.
Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was crucial to promptly enable the supply of reasons so that minors and their parents can understand the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.
The authorities has consistently said the ban would remain in place until a examination into trans healthcare had been completed.
A forward-thinking business strategist with over a decade of experience in market analysis and digital transformation, passionate about empowering entrepreneurs.
New
New