Yes, the trouble I have with those is that they are (perhaps inevitably) one sided. I rather like the 'female privilege list's which bring a sense of balance [I'm not trying to imply parity though, but an uncommented male privilege list is just too depressing]. Homosexual, or Queer privilege lists are probably a lot harder to construct.

There is also the issue (discussed somewhat here and here) that there is a difference between 'relative advantage' and 'unearned benefit which the group shouldn’t have'. That is to say, some relative advantages are fair, or at least natural ('I can generally run 100m in a lower time than a woman'), whereas an unearned benefit probably never is. [Of course that could potentially lead into the whole 'what is natural' debate.]

I suppose though, one could use such lists to construct a list of actions one needs to take, or at least to bear in mind, e.g., based on here:

1. If I am conducting recruitment for a job, I will be aware that I will probably rank the male applicants as better, and try to mentally correct for this.
2. I will not, even in jest, speculate or assume that a woman has got a job because of her sex.
3. I will promote based upon merit, keeping in mind that I may subconsciously rank male performance as better.
4. I will not use the performance of a woman in the workplace to judge her whole sex.
5. I will never sexually harass a woman. I will stand up and object where I see harassment.
...

Of course some are difficult - point 8 on the linked list is: 'On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.' and I wouldn't really support actions of either:
8.i) I will not teach any daughters to fear walking alone after dark;
or
8.ii) I will teach my sons to fear walking alone after dark.

In other constructive things, doing a little research reveals this: this which seems, erm, 'nice' - you know.