The first thing I found interesting from the article was on clarifying the pathways to success. When I was considering the pursuit of a physics Ph.D., there was never any 7 steps-to-success pamphlet. I think that clarifying the pathways for achieving what you want in a career woud be helpful for people of any demographic. I think a lot of the "problems" with underrepresented demographics in CS or other STEM/professional fields is a lack of exposure in educational settings that are earlier than college.
For example, when I was a physics teacher, something like 80% of my students were male while other sciences were close to evenly split in gender demographics. Most curricula use examples that excite males more than females. For example, the class I taught was project based with lots of things that interested boys: cars, machines, and things that blow up. This isn't done necessarily with boys in mind or to exclude females. These examples lend themselves almost too easily to physics that they are used without the consideration of engagement for both genders.
When I was studying pursuing my B.S. in physics, the school I attended was only 18% female. I never experienced the "intimidation/macho factor" described in the article and was never bothered by the fact that gender disparity was very high. However, I don't want to discount the experiences of other females that may have been different from my own. I think any intimidation results from the disparity of exposure and experience of students coming in to the program, similar to the situation for mod 1 students at Turing.
Currently, Echo seems to be more female than Foxtrot, but perhaps that's not the case if you look at mod 1 E/F breakdowns over time. I think it's benefiical in general to be paired with people of similar abilities/exposure in the beginning. When I was a teacher, I frequently tried to group students with similar skill/math levels because I didn't want them to feel like the "dumb one" or the "smart one." As time went on, I definitely saw that their confidence was bolstered. Perhaps the effect is psychological in nature and benefits any demographic group that has less than average exposure entering a rigorous class.