I agree with what you say................
Whilst astrology is essentially a feminine study, astronomy is masculine.  In the masculine world everything has to endure being measured and classified, and then named accordingly - even people.

In Lisa Dale Miller's article, she suggests that the `demotion' of Pluto by astronomers is symbolic for the denial of the shadow side of all things - even science itself!!  I look at most things for their symbolism, as the symbolic nuances are what is actually happening, rather than the events themselves.

In other words, Pluto is still there, and still showing us our shadow sides, and the shadow in all things, its denial by the scientific community says more about them than it does about Pluto!!

This is a very good knowledgable approach. Pluto is still an important celestial body no matter what astronomy classifies it as.................

Gaeliccrossed1 nailed this right on the head.  All that the IAU is saying is that it does not meet the 21st century technical description of a planet.  That really doesn't mean a whole lot.  It is a round body of sufficient mass to orbit the sun.  It has a satellite orbiting it.  Whether it's a dwarf planet or planet is just an arbitrary limit set by the scientists.

Here's something to consider.  A definition of a planet is that it only answers to the sun in terms of gravitation.  The satellite Ganymede, for example, which is large enough to be a planet, is not one , because the pull of Jupiter's gravity (which Ganymede orbits) is much stronger than that of the sun in the vicinity of Ganymede.  Technically the two (Jupiter and Ganymede) orbit a common center, although that center is buried deep with Jupiter, so Jupiter sort of wobbles around that point.  Is this important, yes, as I will show shortly, so keep that in mind, but also the important 21st classification is that Jupiter's gravity is stronger than the Sun's at Ganymede, so Ganymede is a moon, not a planet.

Now let's consider the Earth's moon.  The Earth is more massive so the moon orbits the earth while the earth wobbles around the earth-moon center which is inside of the earth.  But the earth is not as massive as Jupiter and the moon is much closer to the Sun than Ganymede.  What does that mean?  Simply that the Sun's gravitational influence on the Moon is TWICE that of that of the Earth upon the moon.  I'm not making this up; I will gladly supply the equations that support this.  But the bottom line is that Earth's pull on the moon is only 46% of the Sun's pull on the Moon.  Bottom line:  If we strictly adhere to the new classifications of what constitutes a planetary body, the moon would be a planet and the Earth-Moon would comprise a double planetary system.

Well, no one at the IAU has proposed this.  Probably because no one would accept it.  Technical definitions don't change what common sense tells us.  We see the moon as a satellite, not as a planet, and we see Pluto as a planet.  Anything else is just arbitrary nonsense.

These astromomers bring out new theories, and demolished the pluto. i think they require more knowledge.

I bet someday they will find more planets... as technology improves, scientists are bound to discover more of what is out there.

I wonder how that will affect astrology if they decide there is more out there? I am sort of a novice about astrology, so I don't know if astrology accounts for this possibility already....?