Yes, when you basically tell women “we are designing our characters to be respectful” and then put various controls on sexuality/beauty, you are telling them that they are only respectable women if they conform to your standards of presentation and are disrespecting themselves if they contradict it with their character preferences or self expression.
Also if you make your female character design decisions based on what manner a man may enjoy looking at them, actively presuming what potential enjoyment he may find and in your judgment deciding what he should not be allowed to find, and have no such presumption and prohibition mindset in regards to how women might view the male characters, you are being sexist.
I personally think the character designs are perfectly fine as well as attractive, however their mindset behind those designs, the double standard with the male character designs, and the virtue signaling in that interview are rather problematic and arrogant. Now, some would say I'm being disingenuous to social context with that, since men are more often sexual offenders, but within that notion is the fallacious reasoning.
It goes something like this:
1) Men are most often sexual offenders.
2) Sexual offenders appear to have a subculture of turning their attractions into the objectification, disparaging, and abuse of women. This is "rape culture" and one can see the way different depictions of media may feed it.
3) Rape culture is responsible for misogyny and abuse of women.
4) We must rid all cultural expressions of what can potentially feed into this.
Almost seems reasonable in a certain light, but in it are obvious problems:
1) It is saying that the attractions normal men experience upon viewing beauty and feminine sexuality is part of rape culture and makes them into rapists.
2) It is puritanical in cultural expressions to avoid contributing to rape culture while fearing victim-blaming and thus perceives itself as not, by way of its depictions, condemning women who are not puritanical in their self-expression.
3) The combination of 1 & 2 reveal the additional presumption which is that men thoughtlessly form their perceptions and personal character according to media and apparent extremes that their imaginations take as the meaning of that media, yet women apparently do not.
4) Apparently this is only true of sexual violence, and everyone is immune from other forms of violence in their media turning them into murderers.
So I find this kind of stuff offensive not because it is "taking away" scantily clad women or anything like that, but because it is communicating a message that I am a wild beast ruled by my passions, yet perhaps even worse, as apparently I won't only mindlessly follow what I am shown, but also dream up all sorts of additional nasty things by way of it to disparage and use women in some sort of sadism, like I'm perhaps inclined, simply by being a man, to surpass beast and be a sort of demon. Besides that, there is also the hidden disparagement of women's freedoms and beauty in it that is supposedly feminist yet anti-femininity.