Let’s take the example of brain chips. By this I presume you mean neural implants that either communicate with the outside world, or enhance cognition in some way. (If you mean something else, correct me as it’s not my intent to straw man).

Glasses or contact lenses are external aids that enhance perception. Hearing aids are even better examples because they have an internal/surgical component.

We don’t think of these things as transhumanist, but I suspect that’s because they’ve existed for a long time (familiarity) and they’re considered assistive rather than excessive. That is, they bring the user up to par, rather than putting them ahead.

There are technologies to increase kinds of cognition. Calculators aid in arithmetic. A person with a calculator far outperforms a person without. But we don’t think of this as transhumanist because the device resides outside of the body envelope.

My position is that the body envelope is not the special case people seem to think it is. As soon as the enhancement in question is to alleviate a disability or illness, we’re OK with considering internal remedies. We’re even OK considering internal remedies for cosmetic effect (breast augmentation, liposuction, etc.)

It seems odd to me that people are OK with cognitive enhancements that are technological and external (calculators), pharmaceutical and internal (caffeine), but not technological and internal (brain chips).

Note: I’m not saying I personally would volunteer for a brain chip. Just that I have no problem with other people doing so with informed consent. To me it’s not categorically different from other internal/external cognitive/adaptive/cosmetic interventions.