There is only one person to answer that question: yourself.
Read GPO's statement and decide if you would agree with it or not.
If I agree or not is irrelevant to the question. I am not the person setting this particular standard. If I am the person who is to set my standard,
a personal standard, there seems to be some beef missing from the premise of having one in the first place.
I have a certain appreciation for the effort here, but in all candor it seems to me half baked. By the criteria set forth it seems that in order to wear the label it must be in the vein of editorial, journalism or street photography by any medium. That makes the additional exclusion of non-analog capricious, or at the very least, arbitrary.
The real issue here is not what is genuine or not. That is problematic at best because it sets up a can of worms called "non-genuine", and by that definition it is the standard setter that must be able to define my traditional analog photographs as "non-genuine" or genuine". An unwillingness to do so is an evasion of the standard setters own premise. My own opinion, as an unwitting participant in the "genuine" or "non-genuine" standard carries no weight whatsoever, as I have not publicly undertaken to set a division of genuine vs. non-genuine. That fact renders my own opinion on this standard as it applies to my work moot.
The real issue and what we should all be concerned with:
Provenance
The most basic and actually definable criteria for any form of finite visual pattern is the provenance. This is the area where clear speaking is lacking concerning the current state of affairs, and it is the only place where the rubber meets the road with a clear objective. It is in my opinion folly to try to define something by including a statement implied (as in this case) or otherwise that attempts to say by inclusion: "genuine", -real, what something else is not: "non-genuine "-fake.
Provenance is precisely definable.
What is it? This sets up a paradigm for truth that needs meet no arbitrary standard of inclusion or exclusion, and gives all the participants actual information concerning the artifact.
Attempting to enforce what constitutes a "photograph" in the language of a layperson is simply bailing against the tide. The best example in disparate subject is the coercion of the word "theory" by creationists, who clearly don't know what constitutes a theory, and confuse the lay definition of theory (speculation) with the actual definition of a theory (a hypothesis that has been proven to the point where it can be assumed to be fact barring new information to the contrary).
Insisting on clear provenance of work presented, while admittedly difficult these days, at least carries a clarity that is not easily weaseled out of by those who seem ashamed to clearly identify their artifacts.
The droves of amateur "photographers" calling inkjet prints "giclees" need not concern the professional working in any medium, including ink. If someone doesn't know what a "giclee" really is, or feels the need to call their inkjets so, they aren't generally relevant to a genuine or non-genuine photographer or his/her work.
IMO "Genuine Photograph" is as much an affectation as "giclee".
"J Brunner-Toned cyanotype on Arches Platine" or "J Brunner-genuine photograph". Which would you buy?
Accuracy or truthiness?