i got in an argument with a guy recently and he's an annoying know-it-all but i am now wondering if i could be wrong.

monitors need to be of a sufficient quality for a sufficient degree of color accuracy and they need to be calibrated to be useful in a professional setting. panels can have different color biases even within the same make and model. i have two of the same monitor and one of them is green while the other is magenta. my eyes are adjusted to the magenta one and i do all of my developing in lightroom on the magenta one because it doesn't look magenta, it just looks normal to my eyes. if you use a display for long enough, your eyes stop seeing the color bias the display has and it will look normal to you. my understanding is that every display has some color bias and if you want your monitors to look the same you need to pay extra to buy a matching set that have been curated from existing stock to have the same temperature/tint. they don't make them to look the same, they just make a production run, pull a selection of them, look at the panels with an instrument, and categorize them into different categories of tint.

this guy i was arguing with was saying that if your monitor has any tint, and the whites and grays are not objectively neutral in color, then it's a shitty monitor not suitable for professional graphics work because all professionals have monitors that all look objectively identical to each other. this sounds like bullshit to me. are there any professionals here with a pro monitor, who are invested enough that you calibrate your displays for accuracy, who can chime in about this?