Pluto's downgrade was simply because we found potentially thousands of more Pluto's.

The argument I've seen skips the step that the new definition was created to include those other Pluto like objects.

They jump right to how the planet definition was updated to not have overlap or ambiguity with Pluto and therefore was about creating a way to exclude Pluto rather than creating a definition that doesn't lead to declaring there are now 50 planets.

It's because the definition includes things that aren't really about the object itself and more about where it is. And also how inconsistent it is, as Mercury isn't in hydrostatic equilibrium and yet is explicitly included as a planet by the IAU. Nevermind the fact that the new definition was speed voted and approved by less than 400 astronomers in a convention where 2500+ people attended, let alone not even being discussed with the larger scientific community.

But hey, if you'd rather dismiss my points because of an url, you do you. Not like this changes our everyday live anyway.