So it looks like I am in pretty good company.
Well you are in a lot of company, but that does not make it good!
The conversation between peter and Jesus was Aramaic as the working language of common people , in which no such distinction of Petra and petros exists, so peter was the rock on which he built the church. The distinction of gender for effect by the later translation into greek.
Not surprising , since the " keys" are a direct unambiguous reference back to the office of steward in a davidic kingdom. And God has always had a leader on earth, Abraham, Moses etc.
Your interpretation does not make syntactic sense either, changing the subject mid sentence without reference, nor logical sense that Jesus should call simon rock, then use the same word of himself in the same sentence, nor does your version even make historic sense , by virtue of the location by a rock platform in Caesarea Phillipi on which a pagan temple was built - the actual contrast
If I asked a group of kids to read it, and asked who or what did Jesus build his church on, they would say peter too, just as they would say Mary of the woman of revelations 12
In short, that Petra petros argument is just another Protestant fudge to avoid the blindingly obvious meaning, they could not care what it means, so long as it is not the catholic meaning!
But you are not in good company since Luther and Calvin thought peter was special, but the historical amnesia of Protestantism, not only forgets the history of early Christianity and scripture but also forgets even what reformationists thought! - which was arguments about succession, not this.
No doubt the same anti catholic tosh will be repeated in one or two posts time as always.