I support your criticism of Transhumanism but I still support a Transhumanist organisation with a mandate to support and influence the achievement of the following goals: Freedom: of scientific research on human enhancement. (Due to conservative resistance to such goals); Development: of targeted feasible and practical research programs that have maximum impact on improving societal and individual conditions. (Due to misplaced focus of limited resources); Access: of all global stakeholders to the process of technological development and its outcomes (Due to the existing inequalities both within and between countries).
Of course, commitment to safe, accountable technoscientific research, to public investment in useful sustainable development, and to equitable distribution of developmental costs and benefits (Mark's three "goals," fleshed out a bit) are all completely mainstream progressive attitudes. You don't have to join a Robot Cult to support these attitudes, and the fact is that nobody actually does join a Robot Cult out of commitment to these attitudes, no matter how often they get trotted out in glossy futurological brochures to whomp up support for the Robot Cult in the general public.
The overabundant majority of people committed to these mainstream progressive notions are not "transhumanists" nor will they ever be, meanwhile the overabundant majority of people who actually identify as "transhumanists" have in common instead (one) faith-based wish-fulfillment fantasies about personal "transcendence" through "technology," (two) parochial (at best, eugenicist at worst) ideas about what constitutes "enhancement" treated as self-evident truths to guide public policy, and (three) highly idiosyncratic views concerning the urgency and proximity of superintelligent Robot Gods, prosthetic or genetic superlongevity techniques, or automatic superabundance on the cheap.
Add to all this the actual lingering influence within transhumanist sub(cult)ures of a number of market-fundamentalist ideologues who disdain the very values in whose name Mark claims to endorse transhumanism. Add to all this the structural tendencies to anti-democracy inhering in any technocratic elitism, and also in any fetishization of megascale engineering and geoengineering that preferentially benefits incumbent corporate-militarist formations, and also in the glib depoliticized deployment of the contested term "enhancement" as though it were merely technical or neutral, and so many of the other anti-democratizing tendencies I highlighted in the very critique he otherwise supported, and so, I must say, I cannot quite understand where Mark is coming from here.