The basic principle behind all of these 'isms, is they operate on the same mechanism, which originates in a few places, notably psychotherapy, where by beginning with an inconsistent premise (see Godel), you can prove anything within its downstream system of logic. Once you have accepted that, you will accept anything built on top of it. Logically, it is a universal solvent, where if you can introduce inconsistency into a line of reasoning, it dissolves the bonds of logic and reason by rendering them inconsistent and decoheres the ideas built on them. The reason you do this theraputically is to temporarily separate a patient from the logic of the story they tell about themselves as a means to relieve suffering long enough for them to process feelings about the events that led them to that conclusion. However, it got applied to literary criticism, and expanded from there.
You can riff on a critical theory infinitely, seemingly proving conclusions in it effortlessly because of its base logical inconsisency. In this case, and pretty much all mainstream critical theories, the mechanism is a positive conclusion from a negative premise. The negative premise in these 'isms is that anti-badness is a positive value, principle, or ideal. A critical theory frames reality in terms of this negatively defined lens, and then shows how otherwise neutral and real things do not meet the condition of being anti-bad.
Hence why you get someone riffing on insufficient anti-badness in a science journal and seeming to make sense, assuming you have accepted the underlying negatively defined fallacy that anti-badness is a sufficient or necessary condition for anything.
However, the effect of this is similar to that of the therapist, where it creates a dependency on the critic to resolve the inconsistencies they have caused. It's mesmerism, and "problematic" has become the universal slogan charlatanism. The hardest part about unpacking it is getting people to admit how thoroughly they have been fooled.
Once you are arguing in terms of whether you are not ablist or anti-bad enough, you have already taken the bait, and you are arguing at a disadvantage within the inconsistent framework of rules in the critical theory, which was designed to distract and keep you from resisting their seizure of the reins of the journals, institutions, funding bodies, and other "means of production," just like they do whenever a society develops industrial capability. They exploit your trust, agreeableness, and good nature, tell you that you have a false consciouness, and that you have been terrible this whole time, and that only their approval can heal.
There's one way out, which is perhaps also ablist because it requires the use of one's middle finger, but it's the only way.