Not at that point, yet. But, these points are not purely speculative. You weaken your argument with a blanket dismissal.

There is no single definition for "species" or "genus" or "subspecies" that will work equally well for all life forms.  But using those labels to name groups of organisms is very useful.  Just because the groups we have called "Salmonella, Shigella, and Escherichia" do not follow exactly the same rules as the groups we call "Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium tetani, Clostridium butyricum" does not make those names useless.   Horizontal gene transfer is not random, some genes are more likely to transfer between individuals than others, and some genes are more likely to be beneficial and selected for in a new host while others are more likely to be beneficial only to a very small group of organisms and detrimental to most others.

Likewise with sexually reproducing organisms, no one rule works for all.  Many organisms have 2 sexes we call male and female, but some fungi have thousands of sexes known as "mating types".   Many organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually..

Folks who favor phylogenetic species concepts would beg to differ, since they are not employing any variant of the Biological Species Concept, but rather pattern-based concepts. I assume, here, you are referring to reproductive criteria. But, what do you mean by "same rules"? As you note, there are numerous strategies to get one's genes into a geneology, but these do not figure into species definitions. They are derived characters for particular taxa. As you noted (and I mentioned in my question), no, HGT is not random. Neither is sex. Sexual isolation is the basis for Mayr's biological species concept. Bacteria were long excluded (by some) from the BSC since the scope of transfer was not known and they were thought to be purely clonal (I would argue that clonality does not rule out species as either individuals or classes). HGT, given the parameters you describe (HGT not random) strengthens the case for species designations based on the BSC and phylogeny, although some might not appreciate the "species" so designated (for example, perhaps, a species consisting of organisms such as Escherichia and Salmonella, which show extensive HGT even in the core genome). That's why pathologists might prefer to stick with current designations, although we are finding that even those standard designations are fraying when we consider transfer of pathogenicity islands and antibiotic resistance elements.

I am not a bacterial nomenclature specialist.  So I am probably wrong about some things.  My understanding, is that a some of the bacterial nomenclature is sort of "Granfathered in", so that for example we will continue to call Shigella flexneri by that name even if the modern day rules for naming newly discovered bacterial groups might have put it within some "Escerichia/Salmonella/Shigella" umbrella group.  I noticed a year or two ago that some recent cases of human and animal outbreaks with bacteria producing the shiga toxin were correctly identified as "Enteropathogenic E. coli" when it seem likely that the offending organism might have been misclassified as a true Shigella back in the days before DNA sequencing was available.

In the Clostridia, some very different organisms have come to be labelled as "Clostridium botulinum" based on the fact that toxins produced by them killed some humans.  If the toxin had killed ducks or other organisms, the very same isolate might have become labelled as "toxin-producing Clostridium baratii" or "toxin producing Clostridium subterminale".

In my opinion, it is usually more useful to provide a name that is close to correct, than to simply label the organism as "unidentified from environmental sample" or similar.   For one example, the GenBank entry with accession number KM204393 is annotated as:

DEFINITION Uncultured bacterium clone FG-32 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial

sequence.

SOURCE uncultured bacterium

ORGANISM uncultured bacterium

Bacteria; environmental samples.

when it is very clearly Anoxybacillus flavithermus.  And in my opinion should be annotated more like this:

DEFINITION Uncultured Anoxybacillus flavithermus clone FG-32 from gut of Cicada Hyalessa sampled in China, 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial

sequence.

SOURCE Anoxybacillus flavithermus

ORGANISM Anoxybacillus flavithermus

Bacteria; Firmicutes; Bacilli; Bacillales; Bacillaceae;

Anoxybacillus.

There are many cases when the sequence cannot be clearly associated within a single "species" but at least could be put within a genus or other group.