OK, so what about male privilege? Again, I'll illustrate with some examples.
If you're a woman, and you're walking down the street or in a parking lot alone at night, you always worry about whether those footsteps that you hear behind you are from a potential rapist. The closer that those footsteps become, the more nervous that you get, and you'll likely quicken your pace. Men don't have to worry about this. If you're a man, and you're walking at night behind a woman whom you don't know (or who doesn't know you), and you're both alone, then you might be bothered if you see that woman start walking faster to increase the distance from you, thereby communicating her anxiety. You know that you're a nice guy, not a rapist, so why should she be afraid of you? Such a question is a demonstration of male privilege. You ask it because you almost never have to worry about being raped, but women worry about it often, perhaps even on a daily basis.
If you're a woman entering a workplace that's predominately staffed by male employees, you'll probably wonder if you're going to be sexually harassed at some point or if the men will make inappropriate sexual comments about you behind your back. If you're a man entering a workplace that's predominately staffed by female employees, you don't worry about being sexually harassed, and you either don't mind sexual comments being made about you by women behind your back, or you don't think about, or you might even enjoy it. If you're a man, you don't tend to worry about how your work clothes will be judged by your coworkers as long as they comply with office dress code. Just wear slacks, a shirt with a collar, and maybe a decent tie, and you're done. If you're woman, you know that you will be judged, and you think about what kind of impression you want to make at the office. Your clothing choices may cause you to be seen as "frumpy," "a cold bitch," "a stuck-up bitch," "boring," "fun," "exciting," "friendly," "inviting," "a cock-tease," etc.
Speaking of appearance, the cosmetic and fashion industries are universally understood to be geared toward women. Women are "supposed" to wear make-up, but men are not "supposed" to wear make-up. Women are "supposed" to spend a lot of time and money shopping for clothes and shoes and jewelry and cosmetics and getting manicures/pedicures. Men are "supposed" to spend a lot of time and money shopping for utilitarian items such as gadgets and tools and cars. Look at the clothing that's made for women: It's all universally more form-fitting, skin-revealing, and thinner than clothing made for men or claimed to be unisex. Women's jeans are much tighter; women's sleeves are much shorter; women's necklines are much lower; women's shirts and dresses always hug the waistline. Women can wear (and are sometimes expected to wear) sexy lingerie, but the idea of lingerie that's made for men to wear is laughable to most people. Guys get teased for wearing briefs instead of boxers. In short, women's clothes are always designed to accentuate and show-off women's bodies.
Men who wear clothes with those attributes are thought to be probably gay. Women who wear clothes that are baggy or loose and have longer sleeves and higher necklines and thick weaves are thought be tomboys or butch lesbians. Take a look at swimwear: bikinis are more common than one-piece women's swimsuits, but virtually all women's swimwear is thin, form-fitting, and highly revealing; American men wear thick, long, baggy swim trunks. (Please note that Speedos are preferred by men in most other countries.) The net effect is that women are perceived to be obsessed with their appearance (to say nothing of sexual objectification here), perhaps on an inherent level, and the implication is therefore that women are shallow beings whose main value is looking good. How can women expect to be taken seriously in professional, academic, and intellectual environments when cosmetics and clothing are gendered in this way?
Look at the popular shows on TV and the popular movies in theaters. Name as many sitcom families as you can and ask yourself what they're like: "The Simpsons," "Family Guy," "The King of Queens," "Everybody Loves Raymond," "According to Jim," "Married... with Children." The wife characters are always, always gorgeous women (and are usually pointed-out as such at some point by other characters), while the husbands are usually average-looking at best and/or overweight, with no other outstanding attributes (e.g., intelligence, wit, career accomplishments). You will never see a sitcom family in which the wife is a Plain Jane and the husband is a sexy hunk. The problem isn't just that women have to be very good-looking in order to play starring roles on TV while men don't. The bigger problem is that men can watch these shows and feel validated that their appearance doesn't matter, and they can still be the head-of-household and breadwinner and have a hot wife. Where's the validation for women who watch these shows?
Name the highest-grossing movies of the last decade, the ones that grossed over $200 million. They are predominately male-oriented, testosterone-driven action movies. The women in those movies invariably take supporting roles that have some sexpot aspect to them. In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Tom Cruise gets to climb the side of a skyscraper, but he never has to wear revealing clothes and try to seduce a rich and powerful person. Paula Patton, who plays the only female main character, has to wear a sexy dress and seduce a guy in order to advance the plot. Think about Scarlett Johansson's part in The Avengers and how she's portrayed compared to the male characters. The Harry Potter franchise may have been started by a woman, but the protagonist is still male, and the story is from his point of view with Hermione as a supporting character.
How about James Bond? Again, the female characters are usually sexpots who dress sexy and show skin in sex scenes, while Bond himself, though very sexual, is rarely seen as less than fully-clothed. If he is half-naked or naked in a scene, then his body is usually obscured. Lots of women enjoy James Bond movies, and I'm sure that they would love seeing Bond show a lot more skin. But that won't happen because a lot of male viewers will be turned-off, as if women aren't turned-off by the sexy Bond girls. In other words, Bond movies (and most other mainstream movies) must be catered to men's homophobia but need not be catered to any possible women's homophobia.
The Twilight and Sex and the City movies were very popular with female audiences, but that's also problematic for two main reasons. First of all, the audiences were overwhelmingly female, whereas the audiences for the other blockbusters (which are male-centric narratives) were well-balanced between male and female. There is an unspoken but universally-accepted rule among Hollywood executives that you cannot make any big-budget movie that appeals to all demographics unless it has a male protagonist or an ensemble that's predominantly male. Hollywood considers any movie with a female protagonist (or an ensemble that's predominantly female) to be a movie that's targeted specifically at women; such movies almost never draw a significant male audience. I have seen this reported by Nikki Finke, the preeminent online journalist in Hollywood.
Second, look at how women are portrayed in movies that are targeted at female audiences. They always have conventional gender roles (as do the male characters). Bella Swan apparently has no life without her man, Edward Cullen. Carrie Bradshaw and her friends are consumed by shopping and fashion and "girl talk." Romantic comedies are all about women needing men to feel complete, and they are sold as typical women's fantasies. If that weren't problematic enough, these wish-fulfillment narratives are odd because, once again, the female protagonists are always, always very good-looking. Why not have a romantic comedy in which a frumpy, homely, career-driven woman gets to have the hunky stay-at-home man of her dreams? On the other hand, The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked-Up both feature male protagonists who are not very conventionally-handsome but who marry very conventionally-beautiful women.
The Hunger Games is important because it's the first major blockbuster in a very long time that appeals to all demographics and has a female protagonist who can just be a bad-ass and who never has to be sexy (except for one insignificant scene) and who never has to rely on men all of the time. The last movie that accomplished this, AFAIK, is Aliens back in 1986. We definitely need more movies like this.
The point is that so much popular entertainment requires women to accommodate male perspectives and male tastes, while men do not have to likewise accommodate female perspectives and female tastes in the same way. Most heterosexual couples find mutual enjoyment in big-budget action movies (which are basically male fantasies), but women have to drag their men to see "chick flicks." The inequality, and thus the male privilege, should be apparent here. How do you think popular entertainment affects popular attitudes about gender? However problematic the concept of the gender binary may be, much more problematic is what gender roles imply about the comparative value, status, and power of each gender. If we're not aware of the male privilege that comes with these gender roles, then gender inequality will perpetuate.
As far as FTMs go, the notion that they want to have male privilege is suspect to me. But a trans man can have male privilege if he can pass and be stealth. If he's known to be trans, then the male privilege is probably negated by the glaring lack of cisgender privilege.
TL;DR - don't get me started on male privilege, LOL.