I am a Goddamned transhumanist
See, I have never understood that. Well, no that's not true. I understand it, I just find myself curious how trans- or post- humanists come to the conclusion that we will be anything other than human simply because we have cybernetically or genetically altered out physical forms.
That's the word-fuckery aspect of the thing (you know, what someone else might call
semantics), and I generally say that while there'll be significant additions to how we function in the next couple of decades, your humanity will largely be intact.
The goals of a political transhumanist as I see them include things like getting ethical law where it needs to be to legalize sane life-extension research, create a legal framework for the possibilities of artificial life (they keep pegging the advanced general intelligence maturation point at somewhere just this side of twenty years from now), creating another such framework for the possibility of nanotech (ditto on the maturation point thing), and working to research a way to shield the populace from the negative effects of either one going awry (no, it won't likely be like anything Hollywood churns out, go look up the Lifeboat Foundation).
There's also the PR game people like Michael Anissimov play to bring as realistic a view of transhumanist aims and efforts to the wider world as possible while making sure everyone gets the really nice bits through their heads (google him if you like, I don't want to post a link). They do things like saying 'we're not here to play up your fear of death or read science fiction to you, we're here to underscore that a lot of people like the idea of living longer because more life is good. And yes, there are significant risks in perusing these new technologies, but between the lack of feasibility of relinquishment of this whole march of progress thing - I mean, YOU convince everyone to stop researching ANYTHING - and the attempts on our part to set up safeguards, we feel we're making a half-decent choice.'
Which leads me to mention that there's also efforts to cobble together ideas for whatever economic structures need to arise to enable more people to live longer with a higher standard of sustainability (as well as a higher standard of living).
The rest, I really can't speak to.
I don't see that that would separate us from the Human Condition, and even if it were to do so, it wouldn't so much separate us from it as it would alter what the Human Condition was.
Hence my own use of the word 'alter.' There's nothing wrong with your reasoning there.