Now you are just playing a semantics game.
Semantics is serioius business when we are being careful about the meanings of words and concepts. It is only a game when we are playing around with words that mean essentially the same thing. For example, it is a semantic game to argue about whether a medicine "killed the patient" or "contributed to the patient's death".
But when necessary distinctions need to be made, when we need different names for different things, semantics--the study of meaning--is just the prescription we are looking for.
Did God actually form the first human right out of the ground? According to evolutionists, no. Whether you want to call it an event, an account, a widget, or whatever, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.
It did not happen literally in that way. However, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. So it is real.
(The semantics here centre on what is the meaning of "real".)
Did God actually remove Adam's rib and fashion it into Eve? According to evolutionists, no, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.
What does it mean that Eve was formed of Adam's rib? Does rejecting the description of Eve's creation as literal require rejecting the reality of her creation or the real meaning of the image? No, it doesn't. So, it is real.
Did a serpent actually seduce Eve into actually eating an actual fruit from an actual tree as the first actual act of actual human disobedience; leading to the first actual appearance of actual hardship/suffering/death that had not previously actually existed on earth? According to evolutionists, no, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.
Even most creationists don't think the serpent was really a serpent. Does that make the story not real? If the serpent can be a symbol that "really means" Satan, why cannot the tree and the fruit also be symbols that "really mean" temptation? Why can the eating of the fruit not be a symbol that "really means" sin--whatever the actual details of the first sin?
No, it did not actually happen as described, because the description is couched in symbolic language, but, nevertheless, it is real.
For TEs, whatever the mode of description, the event is real and relevant. The event occurred and is relevant to our redemption. So it is part of redemption history and we do not deny that.