The first claim, which actually frames SD's whole case, is that "nearly all Transhumanists are either Neocons and Neocon influenced."
There is some real wiggle-room introduced by the inclusion of "influence" here, but the force of the point does seem to suggest that most transhumanist-identified people are also Movement Conservatives of one kind or another, and the simple truth is that so many of the highest profile transhumanists are mainstream liberals, social democrats, and even democratic socialists at this point in their movement's history that this is a hard claim to stand by. Sure, in the 1990s when transhumanism was defined by the libertopian Extropian cult this claim would have made more sense (the curious California hybrid of market ideology and hippy free love that prevailed among the Extropian ethos might make even that historical claim a little hard to support in a non-nuanced way).
I do think one might find oneself surprised by the number of unrepentant Randroids and libertopian free-marketeers among transhumanists to this day, but I also think it would be wrong to claim that "nearly all transhumanists" are in fact Neocons. I notice, however, despite this claim, SD supports it with a quotation from my work which makes a rather different sort of claim altogether, one which might suggest that they aren't really interested in proposing anything so facile in the first place:
Singularitarian[ism] has powerful resonances with the intuitions of neoliberals and neoconservatives. Some neoliberals and neoconservatives have already started to drift in a broadly Singularitarian, or at any rate technocentric, direction to save their anti-democratic agenda in the face of its current catastrophic culmination (Thomas Friedman, Glenn Reynolds, and William Safire are pretty good examples of this in my view), and it is hard for me to see how the majority of neoliberals and neoconservatives could long resist the lure of Singularitarian arguments that
 provide a rationale for the circumvention of democratic politics
 provide a rationale for increased investment in military R&D
 make recourse to tried and true strategies of fearmongering
 appeal to Old School conservative intuitions about the special Destiny of the West
 appeal to Old School conservative intuitions about the indispensability of elite Gatekeepers of the True Knowledge
 appeal to more newfangled conservative intuitions about "spontaneous order" and "natural(ized) markets."
Needless to say (I hope?), it is very different to say that there are thematic and conceptual "resonances" between two ideological worldviews and to say that partisans of one are necessarily partisans of the other. In this quote it is quite clear that the emphasis is less on Transhumanists identifying with Neoconservative politics than on Neoconservatives (and in the quote I refer to both Neoconservatives and Neoliberals, which also considerably complicates the picture here, surely?) making use of Transhumanist rhetoric for their own purposes. The six tendencies SD goes on to quote quite clearly are described as available and especially useful to conservative politics -- which is a very different sort of claim than to suggest that advocates of one actually intend or presently do make these connections.
And so, to a certain extent, I quite understand why more left-wing transhumanists would be annoyed at the accusation that their transhumanism makes them right-wing whatever their expressed convictions in the matter, but it seems to me such a defensive response is probably a bit beside the point (however understandable it might be). More to the point, it seems to me it would be dem-left transhumanists who would be the ones most interested in a critique like this, taking this delineation of conceptual resonances and vulnerabilities to reactionary appropriation under advisement, inspiring them to be especially on their guard on questions of forming strategic alliances and so on, and provoking efforts to reframe their positions to better reflect their progressive values. That this is not the reaction strikes me as curious and possibly indicative.
Social Democrat's second provocative claim is that "since 99.5% of transhumanists are white males, they don't care about any of these issues" [about the effects of poverty, race, gender and the like on the conspicuously unequal distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of technological "development" in general].
Again, many white male transhumanists who do care about such issues (some few of whom have actually devoted much of their lives to redressing such injustices), are understandably annoyed at the suggestion that their whiteness and maleness disqualifies a proper appreciation of their expressed concerns and the work they do (those few who actually do so) to address them.
I remember all too well the literally hair-raising transformation of consciousness that confronted me as an ignorant and idiotic undergraduate taking a course in feminist philosophy -- and I mean to suggest that I was likely personally much more ignorant and idiotic than these transhumanists are possibly being accused of being -- realizing that whatever my well-meaning but historically uninformed, genial and general commitment to anti-sexism and anti-racism (the course moved from gender into race into queerness and I've never looked back!) could not insulate me from the ways in which being a beneficiary of whiteness and maleness in a white racist patriarchal capitalist society rendered me insensitive in spite of myself to the reality of my unearned privileges, skewed my focus, lent itself to making some connections more readily than others whatever the facts of the matter were, and so on.
Precisely because I was an anti-racist anti-sexist white male in a racist patriarchal society, these commitments required special vigilance from me, never permitted me the comfort of complacency (indeed the expectation of such comfort was already a marker of my whiteness and maleness -- does anybody imagine that women or people of color have comparable expectations of comfort in a racist patriarchal society -- if not, then why exactly should I?).
The point of calling attention to the way whiteness and maleness play into racism and sexism is not to disqualify white males from anti-racism and anti-sexism in advance, nor to indulge in name-calling, nor to activate the so-called perfectionism of a censorious political correctness, nor to make accusations of personal responsibility for structural social problems, nor to mobilize the endless narcissism of liberal guilt, but to register the difficult path of anti-racism and anti-sexist for white males in particular in racist patriarchal societies. It is foolish to pretend one's inhabitation of privilege is not registered in one's personal dealings with it, even if one manages a progressive democratic resistance to such privilege as one's own path.
These are hard truths to swallow, especially if one's privileges insulate us from the necessity to take on the risks and costs of swallowing them. But if one wants to substantiate the claim that one is anti-sexist and anti-racist after all then one of the ways one does this is to react to obvious truths about white male privilege in racist patriarchal societies with understanding and determination rather than defensiveness and demands for approval. At least that's how I see it.