Your view seems consistent. All I can say is that I don't understand why intelligence is relevant for whether you care about suffering. (I'm assuming that you think human infants can suffer, or at least don't rule it out completely, otherwise we would only have an empirical disagreement.)

I would. Similarly if I were going to undergo torture I would be very glad if my capacity to form long term memories would be temporarily disabled.

Me too. But we can control for memories by comparing the scenario I outlined with a scenario where you are first tortured (in your normal mental state) and then have the memory erased.

Speciesism has always seemed like a straw-man to me. How could someone with a reductionist worldview think that species classification matters morally?

You're right, it's not a big deal once you point it out. The interesting thing is that even a lot of secular people will at first (and sometimes even afterwards) bring arguments against the view that animals matter that don't stand the test of the argument of species overlap. It seems like they simply aren't thinking through all the implications of what they are saying, as if it isn't their true rejection. Having said that, there is always the option of biting the bullet, but many people who argue against caring about nonhumans don't actually want to do that.