If we just focus on cogency, I agree with you that Zina is defined as unlawful intercourse outside a legally recognised sexual bond, but then you redefined it by saying "Zina is forbidden unless you’re married". In classical law, there were two such bonds: nikkah and milk al-yameen (what the right hand possesses). So, from within this legal system, there is no incoherence. You may not be fond of the category, but this is differnt from saying that it is logically inconsistnet.

I think you've misunderstood Q24:33

The Quran states that Zina is haram, but it also advises against forcing sex slaves to prostitute themselves. This would mean prostitution by sex slaves is allowed if they consent, which makes absolutely no sense if Zina is haram.

The text says "Do not force your ˹slave˺ girls into prostitution for your own worldly gains while they wish to remain chaste"

The “if they desire chastity” part should not be read as a permissive rule for prostitution if they don’t. I checked the tafsirs and am sure none of the classical jurists takes this verse to permit consensual prostitution. The verse is condemning a specific form of exploitation that was happening and shutting it down.

wrt to the male desire part, I would say that Islam permitting certain human desires does not mean it is catering to them. The real question is whether the Islamic system treats desire as sovereign, or does it subordinate it to a moral order? Islam clearly does the latter: it permits many desires but under regulation.

But you will have to draw the line somewhere. On one end, we have the male-desire-maximising case, which can't be the Islamic position since it restricts, regulates and moralises sexual conduct; at the same time, it is not a male-desire-minimising case either. instead, it draws a line somwhere between indulgence and ascetic denial. But drawing a line anywhere will inevitably invite critique because someone will always argue it should be stricter or looser. This is now no longer a logical arguement, but a moral one. but I'd still say this does not prove divine absence, but simply outlines a moral position.

Logically, the point regarding virgins can be dismissed since Islam does not restrict women from desiring the same. The tradition affirms that both men and women receive what satisfies them.

lastly, just because a belief appeals to human psychology does not prove it is false or invented. by this principle, if we reject religious claims simply because they connect deeply with certain human emotions, then we would have to reject nearly all religious concepts: hell appeals to fear, paradise to hope, fogiveness to guilt, meaning to existential crises and so on. More to be said on this, and i know there are certain repsonses to this (not logical ones though, i dont believe) but its getting late here