You seem to be mistaking UX with UI design.
If you're in the camp who treats UX as a professional title/career, then in principle it has very little to do with UI, and being labelled "UX/UI" is often an "insult" to UX professionals along the same lines as "Computer Scientist / IT support", or "Electrical Engineer/Electrician", "Civil Engineer/Sanitation Engineer", "Pharmacist/Teller at Boots", "Doctor/Medical receptionist". (not to imply that the latter professions are 'lesser', but rather to point out that the former professions in the pairs are typically deemed to require a higher standard of skills/training rather than simply vocational/apprentice-based training).
At the same time, I'm not naive to not understand the fact that, if a large number of people start referring to X as Y, then after a while, insisting that X isn't Y is a lost cause, and you might as well start calling it Z instead.
But, e.g. my wife was a senior UX professional who is now doing her PhD in Experimental Psychology; the original motivation was that this would make her a better UX researcher when conducting controlled experimental studies on behalf of her employer. She specialises in voice assistive tech, and her topic relates to isolating auditory markers of voice trustworthiness. I can tell you if she applied for a UX job and the interviewers started asking her what css colours she prefers on buttons, she'd be pretty pissed.
With that understanding, it seems to me that many, if not most, of the criticisms being levelled here do, in fact, apply to the field of UX research.
But certainly not all of them.
This is often a motte and bailey distinction though, where the "UX" person's background is UI, and they think only about UI. But they can charge more because theoretically UX is everything.
I don't think this is an individual's issue, as if everyone hires UX instead of UI then what do you do? It's a UX consultancy issue.
The poor usability of modern interfaces certainly doesn't come from people who care about what it's like to use it in practice. It comes from people whose main skill lies within the field of aesthetics.
What should you call yourself if you're actually interested in working with usability, and happy to leave the visual design to others?
UX.
Most serious people in UX who see job postings mentioning "UX/UI" avoid those jobs in the same manner that a C++ coder would avoid "C/C++".
But I agree that doesn't do much to dissuade people who don't quite know the difference (or what it is that they actually need or want) from advertising "UX/UI" or "C/C++" and then people applying to these jobs.
There being "impostors" in the field who bluff their way through, while regrettable, does not imply that the whole industry is made up, any more than the existence of people applying to data science jobs with nothing but excel skills says nothing about data science.
And some companies really, really need UX people on board.
Now, I'm someone who insists on having a UX/UI person in the team when I'm making an app, as I want it all to go well, and I don't mind spending a chunk to get it, but the number of people I've found who can actually do that is vanishingly small compared to the number of people who are billed out as expensive UX consultants.