🔗 Share this article

The state government released private details about the parent of a trans teenager – data she says potentially exposed her teen – to a unknown individual.

Allegations 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 health records from parents of trans youth who are considering a further legal challenge to its disputed prohibition on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Order on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order banning the prescription of puberty blockers for transgender patients, shortly after the high court determined the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Guardian Australia has spoken to several parents who have approached Nicholls for a legal document called a statement of reasons – a formal explanation of why the government made a decision to prohibit hormone treatments in the state. Legally, the paper must be provided under the legal statute.

Demanded Health Information

All four were required by the health authorities for details of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any other evidence which supports your teen having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The details were requested before the explanation would be provided.

The email, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your teen is a client of the youth gender service so that we can verify the information submitted with the health service,” states the email, which was dispatched recently.

Parents Label Request as Breach of Confidentiality

Each parent described the request as an violation of confidentiality.

One parent said she was reluctant to share the details because the authorities had accidentally sent her data to a another individual.

“It feels like having to ‘out’ your teen to actually get 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 child, was one of several who requested a statement of reasons both times.

In May, the department sent a response meant for her to another parent, revealing her name and location – 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 obtained an message from the agency admitting the error.

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 doesn’t like anyone to know that she’s transgender,” Louise said.

“I honor that to my core as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever share is out of need for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to people I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

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

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

Other Mother Expresses Worries

Another mother said she was unwilling disclosing the health background of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

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

“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be leaked one day, in any manner, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be deeply, deeply distressing to him.”

She responded saying the department 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 present environment,” she said.

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

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the parent in her challenge, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said last week.

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

Government Position on Ban

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