Arguing with something/someone by labeling it (too) perfect is a bit of a signal for me. Criticizing perfectionism is often just a lazy way to argue for one's side—usually to argue for doing less, but notably the less that doesn't matter to the arguer. Requesting more QA time, improving load times, getting one more feature in could be perfectionist, but have to argue against the particular thing not perfectionism.

The thing I most worry about using anti-perfectionism arguments is that it begs a vision in the first place—perfectionism requires an idea of what's perfect. Projects suffer from a lack of real hypotheses. Fine, just build. But if you're cutting something important to others by calling it too perfect, can you define the goal (not just the ingredients)? We tend to justify these things by saying, we'll iterate. Much like perfectionism can always be criticized, iteration can theoretically always make a thing better. Iteration is not vision and strategy, it's nearly the reverse, it hedges vision and strategy.

This is a slightly different point, but when we say we don't need this extra security or that UX performance, you're setting a ceiling on the people who are passionate about them. Those things really do have limits (no illusions!), but you're not just cutting corners, you're cutting specific corners. That's a company's culture. Being accused of perfectionism justifiably leads to upset that the company doesn't care about security or users. Yeah, maybe it's limited to this one project, but often not.

I agree with others that on a personal level, perfectionism is a lot of individual procrastination. I'm commenting a bit more about groups, but it might work quite well to look at the leader as procrastinating on strategy by calling downstream work perfectionist.