Because the IAU definition specifically says dwarf planets aren't planets at all but another type of object entirely. This is contradicted by the Dawn mission to Ceres and the New Horizons mission to Pluto, both of which showed these worlds to have planetary processes and geology similar to those seen on the terrestrial worlds.
According to the geophysical planet definition, spherical moons are considered secondary or satellite planets (as opposed to primary planets, which orbit a star directly).
So why diminish their value just because of location? We don't think it's right to do that with people do we? Just because someone lives in NY or LA doesn't make them more prestigious than someone who lives in Wyoming or North Dakota. If Ganymede was where Pluto is it would be a planet, certainly to those like you who want to make Pluto the 9th planet.
Referring to spherical moons as satellite planets does not in any way diminish their value. It just puts them in a different subcategory of planet, specifically, planets that orbit another planet.
9
u/ConsiderationOk4035 23d ago
Along with Sedna, Orcus, Haumea, Makake, Eris, and Gonggone (among others)?