I seem to remember getting the impression that many "actual biologists" did refer to it and often think of it as "junk" DNA in the '80s. But that's just an impression since I never bought into the concept it was "junk" and to the extent I paid attention, it was to those trying to find why it was there and what it did.

I agree. Back in the '80s scientists claimed that a large proportion of DNA didn't encode for anything (introns) and therefore was "junk".

Now our understanding is that although DNA might not encode for anything, it still plays a role in DNA expression.