Inspired by the constant refusal to respect and recognise some micronationalists’ legitimate and firmly established identities and expressions which fall under LGBTQ+ discourses, the State of Sandus has drafted a protocol to provide micronations which support LGBTQ+ politics the opportunity to respond in a more pragmatic way than simple diplomatic pressure — as has been the only resource for LGBTQ+ and Allied states in the past. This new protocol manipulates the aged and well-recognised courtesy of micronationalism (1) to accept the use of pseudonyms, (2) to use recognised and agreed upon honorifics and addresses, (3) to style other micronationalists in a way befitting of their rank and the style of their sovereign state. Recognising this courtesy is a display of respect, the protocol authorises micronations to refuse any three of these behaviours to micronationalists who outright refuse to address or recognise a micronationalist in a manner befitting of their legitimate gender identity, as recognised in LGBTQ+ studies and political discourses.
This impacts Sandus’s interactions with micronationalists in the broader community through the way in which foreign heads of government and state have asked to not be addressed as “M.”, have asked that a pseudonym be used in lieu of the person’s real name, and so on. As respect is granted to these individuals, they refused to grant respect to trans* and other LGBTQ+ micronationalists. M. Jacob Tierney, former Meritarch of Renasia, has pointed out that this paradox of tolerance is well recognised in philosophy with philosopher Karl Popper explaining the paradox in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1. “Seriously, the whole thing is well discussed, it’s called ‘the paradox of tolerance’ and it is generally agreed that the ethical outcome is the intolerance of intolerance,” Tierney explained in discussions with the Sôgmô.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
— The Open Society and Its Enemies
Sandus has sent the proposal for the protocol to several micronations which have a track-record of support for LGBTQ+ causes and who are seen as ‘allies’ of the LGBTQ+ community. The Denton Protocol is named after the canton of Zealandia.
The text of the Denton Protocol is below:
the Denton Protocol
WHEREAS the signatories consider it a priority to provide for decent respect for micronational diplomats, national leaders, and government officials who fall within trans* and LGBTQ+ identities and communities,
WHEREAS the signatories consider the respect to trans* and LGBTQ+ officials a matter of state and national importance for the signatories,
WHEREAS the signatories themselves are members of LGBTQ+ and allied communities and identify as LGBTQ+,
WHEREAS trans+ identities are defined as transgender, transexual, female-to-male, male-to-female, gender non-binary identities, gender questioning, and gender identities and expressions falling outside of the “traditional” and heterosexist paradigm of gender and sexuality,
THEREFORE the signatories ascribe to this protocol to protect the necessary diplomatic respect between diplomats and official representatives and chargés d’affaires of governments who identify as trans* or LGBTQ+.
Article 1. Signatories shall respect the preferred names and styles of address of government officials of all recognised states, insofar as the limits expressed in Article 3.
Article 2. Signatories shall respect the gender identity, gender expression, and preferred pronouns of LGBTQ+ people whose identities and pronouns are recognised in LGBTQ+ Studies and discourses on gender and sexuality.
Article 3. In the case any party should not respect the preferred names, gender pronouns, and other communicated elements of LGBTQ+ identities and peoples, a signatory to this protocol may refuse to recognise the preferred name, style of address, or pronoun of the violating official in a way synonymous with the violation of respect dealt by the other party as envisioned by this protocol. In other words, should any no-signatory to this protocol refuse to respect the gender identity of another official whose government is a signatory to this protocol, the signatory government may refuse to use and communicate preferred names, styles of address, and titles of the violating official.
Article 4. The signatories envision a process of notifying other signatories of violations of this protocol by non-signatories and signatories alike, so that all signatories may operate as a bloc in the international community as proponents and defenders of LGBTQ+ peoples.
Article 5. This protocol envisions a diplomatic and international community where gender identity is respected and treated carefully in the same way that styles of address, titles, and pseudonyms are treated in the broader intermicronational world.
Article 6. This protocol shall henceforth be named the Denton Protocol, after the canton in Zealandia. This protocol shall come into effect in each signatory state immediately following the signing of each respective government.
sandus.org 
I don’t see how a tolerant society will necessarily be destroyed if it tolerates the intolerant. This certainly makes sense when thinking of physical violence, where a lack of defense against an offensive enemy causes defeat, but the situation in question here relates to ideas and to words. Such words and ideas by themselves do nothing, and if intolerant violence is suppressed (as is any violence besides that of the state monopoly) it is unable to have any tangible effect. Please explain to me how an intolerant viewpoint (in this case a lack of “respect” for gender dysphoric identity) will necessarily cause the destruction of a tolerant viewpoint.
See my response below which I failed to formulate as a reply.
It won’t lead to the destruction of a tolerant viewpoint, but the destruction of a tolerant society. If one gives a tacit approval of this kind of behavior it becomes intrinsically more difficult for society as a whole to be considered tolerant. In the end, if there is little to no imposition or signalling that a behavior is reprehensible, people are ultimately unlikely to change their minds or their actions. It is the actions of people which create the attitude of society.
Thus, your question is misplaced: it is not that the tolerant will literally be wiped out in this case, but that the tolerant society will be barred or otherwise stymied by the inaction of the tolerant against the intolerant. Any questions?
1. Inaction or ignorance is not the same as support. I very much disagree with the famous Tutu quote.
2. If there is no imposition of certain viewpoints, some people will remain intolerant and others will remain tolerant. Some may even become tolerant if they have something to gain from positive interactions with people who they otherwise wouldn’t have tolerated. I don’t see the problem with this at all.