Is the use of the term "Dwarf Planet" for objects that are not "true" planets inherently insensitive? [closed]
In astronomy, the term "dwarf" is used as an adjective, not as a noun. This means that it describes something, like a planet or a star. The phrase "true planet" or "real planet" is not well-defined, that's almost the entire point of making classifications of astronomical objects. Is the Sun a "true star"? Is it a "real star"? Who knows. It is a type of star, just like how Pluto is a type of planet.
Is it inherently offensive to label white dwarf stars as such? Surely someone somewhere can take offense to the choice of label, but that defensiveness is not inherent to the purpose of the label. The situation is no different for dwarf planets. People can take pride or offense in whatever they tie their identity to, so for something to be "inherently insensitive" it would need to not account for that.
The use of "dwarf" in astronomy does take such things into account, in the sense that it is not specifically used for insignificant or not special objects - it is not a noun for labeling objects, rather it is a description. It is the adjective form of the word meaning smaller than the typical case at the time that the label was created. In astronomy, there is a bad habit of holding onto bad labels. My favorite worst example is a planetary nebula, because it has nothing to do with planets!... but it was named by someone in the past and it stuck. Same is true for the term "dwarf." Dwarf stars are actually quite significant in astronomy - they are the endpoint of life for most stars in the Universe! Most stars that we observe happen to be red dwarfs. Red dwarfs are the coolest and smallest stars that occupy the main sequence, so maybe that is reason to describe them as "dwarfic." Nevertheless, it would be an uphill battle, so to speak, to change such a naming convention.
The term “dwarf star” was originated by Ejnar Hertzsprung in 1906. Hertzsprung was an eminent astronomer at the time, and he chose the term "dwarf" to distinguish the more prominent K and M-type stars that are either brighter or dimmer than the Sun, and he used the term "giant" for those that were larger and brighter than the Sun. It is common, historically, to use mythological terminology for describing and naming astronomical objects.
Personally, I think your student from 2006 is not in the wrong, as it would appear that calling Pluto a "dwarf planet" might be a demotion, which was certainly the attitude of many popular articles at the time. But that is not the intention of the classification, just like how calling red dwarfs or white dwarfs is not intended to be demoting; rather, it is intended to be descriptive of a certain type of object. Dwarfs from mythology do not exist, and I find medical terminology that uses the term "dwarf" as a noun to be much more inherently offensive than an adjective form. Fortunately, in the fields of medicine and genetics, dwarfism is nowadays more of an adjective than a noun, as it used to be, and the condition is better described by the specific cause of the disorder.
Perhaps, in the far far future, when the Sun transitions to its red giant phase, a student with gigantism may see the new description of the Sun as a red giant with optimism.