A lot of it is very difficult to say, though, because it doesn't tend to fit into some tidy, fully self-consistent ideological framework.
And there's this weird bias I've noticed that seems to cause lots of really important points to go ignored (or even blatantly disregarded) because they can't easily be shoved into this-ism or that-ism (or because they seem to superficially contradict something "nobody would argue with", even when the points being made are a lot more nuanced than they might seem at first).
Dale Carrico puts some of what needs to be said very well in a recent post (emphasis mine):
It is not only those who go so far as to actively advocate involuntary modification who are typically described as eugenicist in my understanding. There are disciplinary pressures beneath the threshold of conspicuous coercion that will yield eugenic effects just as surely (and more efficaciously) than blatant force will do. Certainly programs of involuntary medical intervention constitute the most hideous and heartbreaking end of the eugenicist spectrum, but one can easily observe comparable homogenizing and restrictive effects arising from popular misinformation, from social stigma, from mass mediated promulgation of norms, from uncritical and inertial workings of orthodox institutional healthcare mechanisms, and so on...
Not everybody needs, as some "transhumanists" [and, I might add, others in general who claim no allegiances to any particular subculture, but whose views are essentially mainstream] apparently seem to do, to literally see a Nazi cracking a whip in the service of genocide before they will grant that even now society is conspiring unnecessarily and at great human cost to cast certain perfectly liveable and dignified and legible human capacities, morphologies, and lifeways as less-than-human, as offenses to humanity demanding "remedy" whatever those who incarnate them might have to say in the matter, and so on.
What he said.
I think a lot of people ignore the fact that the entire culture that would necessarily have to spring up in the service of enforcing "compassionate" involuntary modification would, in and of itself, comprise a terrible abuse racket. In some ways, such a culture already exists, and every time someone tries to make a claim that yet another neutral, non-deadly variation or state of being ought to be pathologized, this culture is bolstered rather than weakened.
So, sorry to rain on your utility function, but I'll have no hand in promoting the kind of culture that would have more and more people locked up for not "curing" their children of nonfatal variations, and that would perpetuate the revocation and diminishment of assistive services on the basis of a distorted, backward belief that these somehow drain the coffers of "deserving" normals.
The reality encompassing all sentient persons is huge, messy, complicated, beautiful, and yes, dangerous. Certainly, this reality could be improved in some respects, and I'm all for doing so when doing so allows more people to live outside the shadow of painful, deadly conditions (cancer, poverty, etc.). But beware the trap of feeling like good intentions alone are enough to justify whatever you do. And also beware the trap of trying to frame everything that makes you vaguely uncomfortable as an "emergency". There are enough real, deadly, actual emergencies in the world already. And the existence of a diverse range of live and conscious animals is not one of them.