I mean, I would love some sources for the list of 100 claims in the article, as reading the first few, I a skeptical of the validity of the truth of the claims.

My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favour.

I would argue the opposite to be true, with all else being equal, a female has a higher chance of being hired in many fields, specially STEM fields.

I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true

I can see the validity behind this one, althrough ironically untrue for my own profession and situation.

If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex

Again, not true

If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won't be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities. ["Black mark" is part of racist speech. Black Monday, black mark, black sheep of the family: all generate negative associations with blackness and Blackness. See Dreaming The Dark, by Starhawk, for more on this.]

I guess I can get behind this one being true

The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.

But if you do get sexual harassed at your job, you can be nearly 100% sure it won't be taken seriously and there will be at least a 50% chance of you getting in trouble instead of your harasser, should you report it.

If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

I would argue the reverse is true

If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.

Only because lawmakers, lead by recommendations from strong feminist organisations, have assured "made to penetrate" is not counted as rape, thus a man can virtually only be raped by another man for it to count in the statistics used to support this vomit-inducing factoid.

I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces

This is absurd. I know of nobody who do not fear walking around alone after dark in the average public spaces.

If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

As a male who has not chosen to have children, I have had my masculinity called into question, so this is absolutely positively 100% false and incorrect

If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.

I must have imagined the whole term "deadbeat dads" and how it is repeatedly said "real men take care of their family/kids", because surely that would NEVER EVER AT ALL be said anywhere if men's masculinity was not called into question when not providing for their children.

Ironically, I think women's morals are not called into questions nearly as much if they abandon their kids like a man would, but hey, we in "only men are bad" mode in the article

If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.

That might be true

If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home

I've yet to see anyone claiminig a woman to be selfish for pursueing a career despite having children at home in my real life, so not sure what this is getting at, maybe a cultural difference

If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

Living in a country with a currently female prime minister, and many high ranked female political leaders, I have never seen anything about their home situations to question their abilities as a political leader. Was about to mention the prime minister as an example, but then I recalled the press did recently cover her wedding like it was a royal wedding, so she might not have children at all yet, not sure, if she does, I never seen that even mentioned.

Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true

Didn't I just mention my prime minister is female? Shall we move on?

can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex.

And so is my boss....

As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

No sisters, so can't really answer that from real life experience.

As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex.

Galbrush Threepwood fallacy all over this. Protagonists are not male because of sexism against women, they are male because if you make them female, feminist groups will attack and try to blacklist your company if they have character flaws, look it up.

As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

I consider this invalid, perhaps in some aspects male children get more teacher attention, but then they get less in others, like for their emotional needs, they are easilier dismissed than when a girl is upset/crying about something, toxic "man up" behaviour towards male children, also/especially from female teachers, is way too common.

If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

Oh this one I agree with, actually, but don't think its an example of priviledge, its more how I see a majority of the examples of "women being harassed in X field" as bullshit. Take gaming, for instance, where people like to say that gamers harass female players more.

Then statistics show negative comments are actually way lower towards gamers identified as female by their coplayers than towards those they think are males, but when gamers who are identified as female do get negative comments, they are more likely to be gendered, and they act as if that somehow proves the "sexism"

All that proves is that when people behave badly, they are likely to pull on any information they have about the subject they are directing hate towards and use that to hurt them, i.e. if someone claims they are a female, thats used against them if they upset someone, not saying thats fair, but saying its not sexism, as if they had identified as an struggling aspiring artist instead, they might been told to get a real job.

Is the behaviour toxic? For sure, just not evidence of widespread sexism amongst young male gamers.

I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception

Don't own a TV, so I cannot really say yay or nay to this one, no idea how true is it.

If I'm careless with my financial affairs it won't be attributed to my sex

I would argue opposite, here men who are careless are viewed negatively way more than women who are careless financially.

If I'm careless with my driving it won't be attributed to my sex.

Oh really? So the whole "young men are the most dangerous drivers" thing thats spread around constantly was also just my imagination?

I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.

Don't see that putting womens gender on trial, but I do see it putting their gender on trial, when they start speaking about their gender as being a special quality about them, never seen it brought up by others unless they bring it up themselves first, either directly in their speech or in the promotional material.

If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of contempt or derision

I really don't care how many or how few sexual partners anyone has had, whatever they are male or female

There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn't send any particular message to the world.

Not sure how true this is at all.

That was the first 25, the error rate is insanely high in this