Chances are you have no idea what this piece is going to be about because let’s face it- the title is absurd, to say the least and seems like somebody was trying to be way too smart and spectacularly failed.
As long as I have your attention, dear reader(s), I will take the fall a hundred times over.
This piece has been born out of a very heated argument between two friends who were fighting about whether Transgender women are indeed “women.” Intense and considering the times we live in, a very controversial topic to even discuss. I was privy to the conversation and heard terms like, “not backed by science”, “X-Y Chromosomes,” “not real”, and the usual crap that is flung around in the air whenever it comes to “different” people.
And that got me thinking- what even is “Real”?
I will (using Metaphysical philosophy) attempt to establish that nothing is as it seems.
Part 1- “Meaning”
Okay. Quiz time. Define the word, “real” for me. 2 minutes is all you get. GO-
(psst, keep reading if you need help)
When we say something is “real,” we tend to work on the assumption that there’s a shared understanding of what that word means.
But there really is not. For example- “real” can mean “physically existing,” “biologically verifiable,” “socially accepted,” or simply “what XYZ personally believes to be true.” The problem here is that each of these meanings comes with its own blind spots.
*cue the music* The hero of the hour- Metaphysics. The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality, forces us to confront these blind spots.
It forces us to think whether Reality is constructed by our minds, societies, and languages?
Take gender, for example. Biology gives us a plethora of words to work from- chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy. But what does culture give us? It provides us with roles, identities, and expectations.
Which out of the two is more “real”? The tangible physical features, or the lived experience of self-identity? If one person’s reality is grounded in physicality, and another’s in personal experience, both may be “true” but only within their chosen realms of meaning.
This is where the science-versus-reality conversation often collapses: we treat “science” as if its a neutral arbiter of truth, forgetting that science itself is a shaped by humans who then in turn, evolve definitions, deal with imperfect data, and rely on cultural context. What was “scientifically true” two centuries ago is, in many cases, laughably wrong today.
So perhaps the question my two friends should deal with, is not “Are transgender women really women?” but rather “Which version of ‘real’ are we using, and why does that version matter to us?”
Part 2 – Eyes, Nose, Fingers- Touch, Smell And See.
If “meaning” shapes the word real, then “perception” shapes the world itself.
We like to think our senses are dedicated and faithful. News flash- They are not.
They’re more like overworked interns (I know y’all can relate), constantly cutting corners, making assumptions, and filling in gaps without informing us.
Easy example- COLOR. The redness of an apple from Kashmir isn’t a property of the apple, it instead is a trick of light wavelengths, eye cones, and a brain that has been trained to label that combination as “red.” In another species’ perception or even another human being’s under different lighting, that same Kashmiri apple might be green, brown, or not from Kashmir at all. (Damn you, cold storage)
(Be with me here, readers- we are about to zoom out. READY, SET, GO!)
Our reality is a stitched-together patchwork of sensory data, cultural programming, personal memory, and emotional bias. Every person’s “truth” is filtered through a unique tinted lens no one else can exactly share. This does not make reality meaningless, rather it just means that it is plural.
And yet, in many conversations, people hold on for dear life to their perception(s) as if it were the only one backed by the Universe’s seal of approval. Science, history, and philosophy have all told us that it is a very dangerous assumption. Our perceptions can be dead wrong, our frameworks archaic and our cold hard “truths” painfully incomplete.
Do not misinterpret me- this is not an all an argument for nihilism. It is an argument for humility, a gentle reminder that if reality itself bends depending on the lens, then perhaps certainty is a luxurious good (ADAM SMITH WHO?) we cannot afford, especially when it comes to deciding WHO or WHAT is “real.”
Part 3 – Is There An Elephant In My Room Or Do My Eyes Deceive Me?
My final leg. (I had two) (Sorry, poor joke)
Okay so, “Reality” is supposed to be the ultimate trump card, the final word in any argument and then you make a dramatic exit.
“This is just how it is”
“Reality does not care about your feelings”
Except….reality isn’t a single, monolithic thing we can hold up like FBI agents show their badges in movies. It is and has always been a shifting interplay of physical facts, mental models, and shared agreements.
Some parts of it are fixed and set in gold(gravity and our round green earth) but vast swaths of what we call “reality” exist because enough people agree(d) to act as though they’re true. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. TERRITORIES. G E N D E R.
The thing is, once an agreed-upon (social contract theory, I KNOW THAT’S RIGHT) reality gets woven deep enough into culture, we start confusing it with nature itself. We forget that what feels “obvious” to us was unthinkable to our ancestors and may be very confusing to our descendants.
Here’s where science enters, with a glint in its eyes, claiming to separate hard facts from human invention. And to be fair, I will give them credit- science is EXCELLENT at describing the measurable world. However, even science operates in a reality defined by the tools we have, the questions we ask, and the biases we inherently carry. It can tell you what is, but not always what matters.
So, the next time someone declares, “That’s not real,” you know what they mean is, “That’s not real according to my version of reality.” And maybe the right thing to do is to admit that our version isn’t the only one worth living in.
If there is one thing metaphysics has taught me, it is this. Reality is not a place we arrive at; it is a story we keep telling together and sometimes even in deep conflict. The question is never just what is real, but rather, who gets to decide.
In the end, while my weary hands type away on a keypad that has seen better days, I realize that the late-night argument between my friends wasn’t really about chromosomes, pronouns, or even science. It was about competing realities; each guarded like holy territory.
And maybe that is the real challenge of our times, not proving who’s right, but recognising that the world is big enough to hold more than one truth at once.
The question isn’t “Are they real?” But rather, whether we’re willing to live in a reality expansive enough to let them be.
Let me leave you with one last question that’ll keep you up at night-
“Do your friends really like you, or are they pretending?”
You’re welcome.
-This article has been written by Dhruv Khanduri (5th Year)
