It's hard to forgive a group who believes in being "stronger together" or making everyone feel good without regard to reality. Maybe they're not really women if they don't go along with female culture. Or maybe the "stronger together" view of female culture is a media lie.

I have cousins on my mother's side are left-wingers and many have migrated south to become Florida Yankees.
I have another brother who called his apartment complex manager a snowflake and smiled when he told me the man did not like it.

There's more to my Atlas Shrugged project on Conservapedia than the biography of John Galt. I have bios of Dagny, Hank, Francisco, Ragnar, Midas, Ellis Wyatt--everyone in fact, except maybe Lillian or Tony Non-Absolute. I also have descriptions of the Taggart Bridge and Tunnel, Directive 10-289, and Project X.

He was fighting against a corrupt political system. He sought to pull it down of its own weight. And he did. But his was a quintessentially political act, though it never once involved casting a ballot. He overthrew the system that placed the pretended ballot box.

You need to understand the differences between libertarianism and objectivism (AR's philosophy).
Without spending the time to spell it out, I will just say that her characters were definitely not "libertarian". But as you mis-defined the term, you are correct.

AS is. A great book. I couldn’t put it down. I identified with parts of the all the main characters and felt I was actually there among them.

Hmm.mm. good point, but, I stand, even if contradicting The Romantic Manifesto.
You say, " different people can find different expressions ..", definitely.
I find AS not naturalistic, and yes there is a strong romantic feel , but it is mainly a warning - go 'that' way and this will happen, explanations are given. The plot develops exactly as the explanations foretold.
'We' were warned, 'we' chose exactly 'that' direction, the result is as predicted, the only difference is in the time scale, in AS it takes a year or so, in life the result is spread over decades.

The OP says we are given very little of the background of John Galt. I think this is deliberate, it prevents the reader judging on that background rather than on achievements. Rand's plot uses identity politics only to condemn the concept.

38 years an Objectivist. I've read everything she's written.
(That doesn't mean I can't be wrong but, in this case, I am not.)

She did not support private ownership of military grade weapons.
I'm not talking hand guns and rifles. I'm talking tanks and missiles.

Libertarians believe you should be able to buy nukes. Anarchists insist on it.
Ayn Rand did not.

I could point you to the relevant passages, but in light of your discourtesy I'll simply say, "Look it up."