My point a few comments ago was that moral realism is the theory that moral statements are real, not that statements about morality are real. Statements about unicorns are real: "unicorns are cute white horses with pointy horns that can only be seen by virgins" is a real statement about unicorns. Unicorns are NOT real.

Any argument or disagreement in this chain arises from what is purely some sort of disagreement about how to use some terms. I don't mean to suggest that the content of moral realism or normative vs descriptive is right or true or real, but I do have rather a thing about using words and terms and other labels in the standard ways they have been used.

For whatever reason, @timtyler considers the standard definitions of either moral relativism or normative to be nonsensical or incomplete or problematic in some serious way. Bully for him. In my opinion, it makes no sense to argue against what the standard definition of various terms are by pointing out that the concepts defined have problems.

Rather than redefining words like moral realism and normative that have quite a long history of meaning what wikipedia describes pretty clearly they mean, I suggest that people who want to create better concepts than these should call them something else, and not argue that the standard definitions are not the standard definitions because they are stupid or wrong or whatever.