If we define "the real bitcoin" as the original vision laid out in the Bitcoin white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto, then yes, a version of bitcoin that conforms completely with the white paper would be the "real" bitcoin.
People may argue that the most important aspect of the "real" bitcoin is the consensus of the community that supports it, rather than any specific technical implementation. Let us examine this concept.
Say I invented and released a coin call Acoin, a great success. After a year another group, without my conscent, forks Acoin and convince exchanges to accept their coin as Acoin and assigned the name Bcoin to my coin! Which is the real Acoin?
Of course my coin is the "Real Bitcoin". It is not appropriate or legal for another group to fork my coin and use the same name without my consent. This could be considered copyright and trademark infringement and other legal violations. The community's acceptance or adoption of the new coin would not absolve the group from their actions.
Suppose I did not reveal my identity when I released Acoin. This will make it difficult for others to determine who is the rightful owner or creator of the coin, and make it easier for someone else to fork the coin and try to pass it off as their own apparently without facing consequences. However, if I can prove that I am the rightful owner or creator of Acoin, I will have legal recourse to protect my intellectual property rights.
Obviously the Real Bitcoin is the one that was created first, and would fully conform to the original white paper. The coin that deviates from the original white paper would be the fork coin. This is important as the fork coin is ILLEGAL. It builds on the original blockchain up to the fork and is therefore infringing someone's copyright. The perpetrators know that they do not own that part of the blockchain, and to removing it will kill their project. The fork coin is an illegal act and the organisers, collaborators and colluders have engaged in and profited from willful infringements. Criminal penalties apply.
Does the community get to decide which coin they prefer or consider to be the Real Bitcoin. Unfortunately for the community, the project was illegal to begin with. It is inevitable that faced with this reality the developers and collaborators will retreat and remove themselves from all and any association with the project. The coin will collapse, the community will be defrauded, and the law must be seen to apply and justice must be seen to be served. This is the reality.
This is why BTC people have put so much resources in debunking Craig Wright as the creator of Bitcoin. It is futile. They have committed and profited from an illegal act. Truth be told, it is irrelevant if Craig is the inventor of Bitcoin. They have willfully committed, profited and continue to benefit from an illegal act.
Had Craig agreed to endorse them and given BTC his blessings, they will be the first to sing his praises and hail him as Satoshi Nakamoto. But Craig is cut from a different cloth and that is their problem. The law will catch up to them sooner or later and they know it.