I understand those critics (of "victimization") but most of the time it makes me feel very inconfortable as it's often diverted as a method and a trick to negate the very existence of "victims" and "perpetuators/dominators/etc" as "imaginary categories". Saying craps like "like in a war, there is no winners", etc.
The problem of the critique of "victimization" is that it's not revolutionnary or anarchist at all at the first place. It have been very much developed in liberal and even reactionnary and fascist circles, in a perspective of falsification on the one hand (negationnists use this concept of "victimization" a lot), and a way to more generaly negate and deny the violences or oppressions by people who perputuate it on the other side.
For exemple, some white people (even they don't consider themselves racists) often accuse non-white people who denounce racism systematically to "victimize" themselves. Antisemitic people always accuses jews to "victimize" themselves, etc.
The point of this argument is to pretend that "victims" or oppressed people (always entertaining a fog on the realm of victimhood or oppression) are "using" their claim so as to "gain power" or even "oppress" other people.
The problem of these considerations, both the speeches only focalised on the question of victims/survivors and (especially) those that pretend to criticize it, is that they tend to depoliticize these questions by adressing it out of their specifical contexts with the pression to be on one side or the other. And of course it's often very necessary to take side, but not only on this kind of dichotomy (I guess).
The ones seeing everything in terms of "victims" and the others by saying it's a only a "category" and not "something real" (which also happen to be incidentaly a very vicious kind of sophism).
I think I remember of Hannah Arrendt talking about the fact that their is no "eternal victims" in history (concerning the jews, I suppose), but only oppressions and oppressed people who are victims of it in their specifical historical contexts.
I think it's a good start, as I think there is no ideological answer to such question as it strongly depends on what we are talking about.