Let me answer you with my post from the other thread:
"Because the fact of the matter is, it IS just localization. However, in this case this instance of localization further infringes upon a historically oppressed minority.
So, even if this is just normal localization, it has now forced itself into a civil rights issue."
This minority has only very recently been able to see advancements in equality. So this is not a "censorship" issue. It's a localization and civil rights issue. The "petting" is only a localization issue. I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp for people.
But I agree with this. This isn't addressing the people (in this very thread) who state that content can be modified between regions to fit that target audience as a catch-all for any and all localization changes.
Something can be "localization" while also being a bigger issue. What I'm questioning is those who refute this, by calling out "localization, not censorship" as a justification for whatever the change is.