So it's up to the planetary scientists to do something about it if they think it makes little sense
Do what? They make up less than 20% of the membership of the IAU. It's a bunch of astronomers. What do you want them to do, file a lawsuit?
They're doing the main thing that they can, which is complain about the "definition" foisted upon them, as Stern was doing above. Something you apparently find fault with.
All I hear is a bunch of bitching about it but no serious counter proposals.
That's your fault if you don't pay attention to the debate, because there have been tons of alternate proposals.
If the IAU decision wasn't scientifically useful then it will be ignored anyway.
And hence a giant stink that lowered the discourse for nothing.
How do you see this as even remotely similar? If you take a shrew from Ohio and you place it in Nepal, does it cease being a shrew and become a dwarf shrew that no longer counts as a shrew?
Actually biologists do stuff like that all the time.
No, they don't.
There are species that are considered different based almost entirely based on location
No, there aren't.
but it does happen and it's not irrational.
No, it doesn't, and yes, it is.
Seriously, you're going to cast doubt on the guy who came up with the Stern-Levison parameter that's used to make that distinction?
When he says something igorant, yes I am.
Right. Got it. The guy who co-invented the Stern-Levison parameter doesn't know how to calculate a Stern-Levison parameter. But you do. Thank you! I take it your name is Harold Levison?
Pluto is absolutely not "much like" "big rocks", and the fact that you'd make this claim is a profound expression of ignorance on the topic.
You are seriously arguing that Pluto is nothing like other "dwarf planets" or other large rocky/icy objects in our solar system?
Pluto is more like Mars than it is Ceres, at the very least. As for other dwarf planets... we have no idea, we've never even been there. Going by things that would be counted as dwarf planets if they were free orbiting, there's a massive range of properties. What's the universal property (apart from size / hydrostatic equilibrium / general terrestrial nature) between Pluto, Luna, Ceres, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, Io, Titan and Triton? Answer: not a damn thing. They're all radically different environments. Some are more similar to each other than others, but they're anything but a logical "group" distinct from the terrestrial planets.
Versus "big rocks", however, the comparison is even more ridiculous. There is literally nothing beyond "they're both made of solid matter" in common between Pluto and a typical large asteroid. Including, for starters, Pluto isn't made of rock. It has some unknown percentage of rock in its interior, but it's overall made of ices, with a thin gas atmosphere (not all that different, structurally, from the ice giants Neptune and Uranus, although the latter two are obviously on a much larger scale and reach much higher pressures in the gaseous state before transitioning to the ice states).