Sorry to play devils advocate a bit here Wintermoot
But even going by historical context there are still a few other objects that should fall into an exception...
I am going to use the old example of Ceres, it was discovered in 1800 roughly (it was even discovered before Neptune), but it's position had been predicted long before, when it was discovered, everyone celebrated and added it to all the charts and maps of the solar system and for around 50 years it was taught in schools that there were 8 (later on 9 when Neptune came along) planets... then as more and more objects were discovered around it, it was determined that it was in-fact just a small object in a much larger "belt", which is now called the asteroid belt, many people didn't like this change of it to a Minor planet. (hence it's designation as "1 Ceres" as it was the first minor planet, Pluto on the other hand is "134340 Pluto"
)
It then went to several phases with some countries printing it as a planet in textbooks and others not, up until 2006 when the international definition of a planet was finally agreed on for the first time, causing both it and Pluto to be dropped for everyone...
The story is to point out that Ceres has as much of, if not potentially more of a claim to "planet-hood" but people very rarely argue for it nowadays compared to back in the 1800s, has the dropping of Ceres back in the 1860's affected anyone these days... not really, will the dropping of Pluto affect anyone nowadays, not really in the long term. Will an accurate definition of a planet help scientists, yes possibly.
Basically the effort of keeping a planet, while nice and everyone would like it, would be unnecessary.
Sorry about all that (this has become a somewhat massive rant
), I understand that it is an unpopular opinion
but I think that Pluto should remain a dwarf planet, in my opinion Science should be universal and while very trivial I feel like bending the rules, even just this once, wouldn't be doing future generations justice...
