No, I am a moral realist. By questioning moral realism, you are admitting that it is true. If you are not questioning moral realism, then why are you posting?
When you question a proposition X, you either have objective arguments, or subjective arguments. If you have subjective arguments, they hold no objective value and are thus as irrelevant for a rational discussion as arguing that you like the color blue. It is nice that you like the color blue, but that's just your opinion.
If you claim to have objective arguments that moral anti-realism is true, that means that you think that it objectively ought to be the case that moral anti-realism is true and that it objectively ought to the be the case that everyone changes their mind and accept the proposition of moral anti-realism (otherwise you would not have objective arguments and take part in a rational discussion). So moral anti-realism performs the stolen concept fallacy. It is the same as claiming that it is true that no truth exist, or verbally argue that all language is meaningless.
Furthermore, it is the moral anti-realist who commits the naturalistic fallacy, by assuming that our unprocessed opinions and instincts about moral standards are automatically valid.
That is why moral anti-realism is a fundamentally a self-refuting proposition.
