Well...
On one hand, yeah, it really isn't a big deal. I mean, I'm ever so slightly curious what they'll replace the given animation with, but it's just an optional animation.
Blizzard has made some hay over trying, in its new game, to offer characters with a wide variety of appearances and body types. That it should move quickly to change something that someone found offensive isn't really surprising.
If this alteration had occurred "behind the scenes", without public comment and discussion, no one would have been the wiser.
On the other hand, this didn't occur "behind the scenes" without public comment and discussion. And while the change is trivial, the atmosphere surrounding said change is charged and brittle and growing ever more so.
The question of whether a single person's discomfort is sufficient reason to make a change is not a trivial one, particularly when many others might prefer that change not have been made. It goes well beyond mere aesthetics. And it's uncomfortable to contemplate that a smaller group might have their choice overwhelm the majority largely because of the amount of headache they might cause a work's creator(s) if their views aren't heeded.
Every time one of these topics blows up, there's inevitably someone throwing out the usual "And now the claims about censorship and SJWs..." as though that observation was the height of wit and perspicacity. It would be equally observant (and equally shallow) to say "One more instance in which someone's 'offense' trumps all other interests or concerns."
We're not getting anywhere like this.
Trying to take Overwatch as a single example, rather than one more shell in an increasingly bitter and reflexive culture war, I will say this:
Overwatch has staked a claim on trying to create a game that is "inclusive" in the sense that its overall style will please as many people as possible and offend as few as possible (within the context of a first-person shooter that some people are inevitably going to write off as another murder simulator rotting out poor children's minds.)
I do not think this is a bad thing. I will be interested to see if this investment of time and resources pays off with a game environment and community that is similarly diverse, or if it will still see the typically male audience that such games usually seem to court. There will still inevitably be questions, in the latter case, if the environment that the players create is still off-putting despite the creators' efforts, but if nothing else, it will make for a worthy experiment.
In the grander scheme of things, however, I am waiting to see a developer who actively says, "You know what, this element you find disturbing was an actively made creative choice, we're not going to change it, and you don't have any right to demand otherwise. If that's a deal-breaker for you, look elsewhere."
...Which might lead to the question of whether some developers are basically allowing parts of their audience to make that statement for them by proxy to avoid the inevitable fallout. That's another discussion. But at least it would be a discussion.
