Pluto should never be used in astrology
(Also, neither should Neptune, but that's a slightly different reasoning to this one)

Pluto is not a planet - it never was - If it were discovered today, it would never have been given the 'planet' title in the first place - It was given the title planet mistakenly, because we didn't know about the Kuiper belt at the time.

The Kuiper belt, is a bit like the asteroid belt, except that Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) are mostly ice, whereas asteroids are mainly rocky - and KBOs orbit mainly beyond Neptune, whereas asteroids orbit mainly between Mars and Jupiter.


• The planets' orbits are pretty close to circular.
Pluto orbits in an elongated ellipse - just like most KBOs
• Pluto's orbit actually encroaches inside Neptune's orbit - just like all the other Trans-Neptunian KBOs
• The planets orbit on a pretty-much flat plane - Pluto's orbit is quite highly inclined - just like many, many KBOs
• Pluto's composition is mostly ice, with some dirt mixed in - Just like KBOs
• Pluto is a KBO, and it isn't even the biggest one, we now know of at least one other that is bigger:-


The recent re-classification to 'Dwarf-Planet' was a 'fudge' by the IAU
They knew it should never have been a 'planet', and wanted to demote it without upsetting people who liked that it was regarded as such - Hence the new term 'Dwarf-Planet'
Pluto isn't a planet, same as the other 'Dwarf's aren't planets either:
Eris is a KBO
Ceres is an asteroid