As I said earlier there's no need to rehash the argument on legality as multiple people have already brought up the truths which you ignore and claim are false. You can search through my post history and find the post where I went through every individual country in the global release and checked their laws regarding fictional sexual depictions of children, it's not worth my time to re-post previous research when it exists in my post history.
It's interesting you try to trivialize the scene to "being shown with a bath towel in a bath" when in reality it's a scene where two adults are spying on children that are groping each other in a bath, where one of the children also talked about how they wanted to roll around in the other ones sweat. Just as an example Kohri's behavior towards Al could even be considered a depiction of child sexual abuse, which would be blatantly illegal in the eye of Canadian law due to there already being cases in Canada that set a precedent for arrests and court ordered deletion of such depictions.
While Article 230 does in fact protect Sega from liability for user generated fictional child pornography (such as the pornographic loli symbol arts I've seen some regulars in this thread spam in lobbies and during concerts, and making sexualized child characters) it doesn't protect the generator of or the one who perpetuates said content in any of these countries where fictional depictions of child pornography are illegal. Despite Article 230 Sega still has an obligation to remove said content whether it was originally from them or user generated.
I don't really understand where the age of the game comes into it. As I've said I've played this franchise my whole life and having worked around people who do translate and localize stuff (specifically manga) and hearing their perspective on it I'm understanding of the considerations that are made when it comes to localization.
I went back and looked at the post that you mentioned and I can see why it was ignored. You did not cite any actual laws. You did not cite any actual precedent. Your "research" seems to have been going on Wikipedia and searching what countries allow/disallow fictional child pornography, which is irrelevant to this conversation about the censored content as as said content objectively does not fall under the legal definition of pornography.
As for Canadian law, please do cite the precedential case(s) that are relevant to the censored content. If such a thing exists, I'm sure it would be an interesting read for all of us.