If I may go down the rabbit hole a little....
I think the question fundamentally amounts to "what is a thing in itself", which we can debate about endlessly. X is X in terms of how you define it. X is also X in terms of how a collective group defines it. Who's ultimately right? Same problem.
The nature of X in relation to an "other", singular group, person, etc, will be consistent, but only with respect to a predetermined set of axioms defined by the group being used as a benchmark. If you compare the consensus of what the nature of X is defined as, within a specific group to another group that has different axioms, you will potentially, in extreme cases, be faced with an insoluble problem, because you won't be comparing the same thing at all, and likely if you're doing this from within a pertinent group, won't even know it.
A thing is whatever you want it to be. That changes with respect to the constitution of that which defines it, and its goals, aversions, and so on.
I think a more concise way of getting an answer would be to ask what a thing isn't.
If you ever watch a good discussion between two academicians, the first thing they'll do is define for each other what their own personal interpretive axioms for a given subject are, and explain the basis for those axioms in terms of ends or desired results, and then define the axioms they use to establish those. The discussion can proceed, provided there is at least some consensus.
You'll find that the general consensus surrounding what a "thing" is, for most people, is a construction based on a loosely (if at all) defined set of inferences, and notions, subject to the limits of their range of personal experience with that given thing (including all of the other inferences about the given "thing" that they have picked up from others (who may themselves only know it through second hand, or worse, information) that they have accumulated, and likely aren't even cognizant enough of, to assess critically.
Personally, I try not to reason with people who's understanding of a given subject is concretized by an exposure garnered exclusively through T.V. Like discussing firearms with someone who as only ever played Call of Duty.
Just enjoy doing what you're doing. It's complicated enough without without segueing into existentialism.