Well regarding the OP’s topic: part of what you’re doing is conflating two possible definitions of egalitarianism. You start by using the more traditional definition which tends to mean something along the lines of “equality of results,” but then occasionally switch it up with the neo-definition which tends towards meaning something like “equality of opportunity/equal negative rights.” The whole point of the libertarian (and before that Mencken and others’) criticism of egalitarianism is, broadly speaking, that equality of opportunity (of negative rights) does not lead to equality of results, and that striving for equality of results is detrimental.
Anyhow, I think that advances leading toward transhumanism will eventually become a reality but can’t say how far off we are. I also can’t say whether the results will be to my liking or not… but I do think it has the potential to be freaking awesome. That being said, things like race, genetics etc. will most likely continue to be very important for the foreseeable future and even with increased technology, possibly actually become more important-- though it’s all speculative.
As far as equality goes, the whole idea of division of labor depends on diversity, aka non-equality. I don’t at all like the idea of homogenous populations, and hope that the types of advances your speaking of would actually lead to the opposite. Just about any sort of complex system thrives on heterogeneity, division of labor, and one that attempts to “equalize” or “level” itself commits suicide.
In some ways these advances will lead to certain types of equalizations, I think. Just as the invention of the gun or crossbow is an equalizer in terms of allowing the physically weak to defeat the physically strong, still there is not complete equality. A good shooter is still better than a bad shooter, and one without any allies can’t do much with one gun against hundreds of people with guns. And of course, guns aren’t everything.