I agree with you. It's more about how the problem was identified and rectified (as far as we know) than the actual modification of the story. Every published story gets cut to pieces over and over again. That's good. The issue is that the focus is on discomfort rather than lack of/improper story function.http://dgaider.tumblr.com/post/36214913229/the-female-perspective-in-game-development
In this specific case, the plot event was intended as being "good-creepy" and ended up being "Bad-creepy" in the eyes of the female writers on their peer review. Does that make it not work with the story? Was it removed simply for being potentially offensive?
These questions aren't answered and that's the real issue here. The entire post by Gaider is about the female perspective, but he doesn't really say anything other than "women see things differently." But the actual topic that needs to be discussed is only explained with vague language.
What the hell is "good-creepy" anyways? Isn't something being creepy at all supposed to make the consumer feel uncomfortable? For a writer, Gaider lacks a lot of clarity. Of course, Kotaku and other outlet picked the story up and DA3 gets some publicity. Mission accomplished.
I'm bothered by how some people cherry pick what issues are offensive and need removal/censorship and what don't. On the flip side, what if a woman had presented a plot point and a man said it made him uncomfortable. What about a white person? Or a minority? How about a poor or rich person? There are lots of unintended reactions from an audience.
(After ME3's ending, Bioware knows that better than anyone.)