Again, no. Being deprived of a right does not mean those who have that right protected are privileged. It simply means they're not being deprived of that right.

Everyone has the same rights when they're born. Everyone. Society then strips them of the protection or preservation of certain rights, rendering that individual's rights inert. That does not mean that someone else's rights are no longer rights, though. There's nothing you can do to Person A that alters the basic human rights of Person B. If you prevent Person A from being able to vote, that doesn't mean that Person B can no longer vote. So saying, "Well Person A can't vote therefore Person B is privileged because he can vote" is illogical. Person B simply hasn't been deprived of his right.

If you give Person C two votes and Person B only one vote, though, then Person C is privileged. Person C is afforded a greater right than Person B. They both still have rights, but Person C has an expanded right over Person B. They can both still vote. Person A isn't just disadvantaged here, though, like Person B is disadvantaged. Person A is completely marginalized from society. There's been an affirmative deprivation of Person A's right to vote, which is different from an affirmative expansion of the right like with Person C. Person B isn't marginalized because his rights haven't been deprived, they're preserved - but he's also not privileged because his rights haven't been expanded and he's at a disadvantage against Person C. Person B is simply at the status quo. Person C is privileged because his rights are afforded greater power than anyone else's rights. His right to vote overpowers Person B's rights.

If A, B and C all vote, C will always win. A's vote doesn't count, and B's vote counts but is overruled by C's double vote. But if we restore A's vote, A and B can neutralize the privilege afforded to C. And if we bring C back to one vote, then everyone is equal. You cannot have a privilege when you're at the status quo, because the status quo is what determines whether someone has been afforded an advantage or dealt a disadvantage. A privilege necessarily connotes an advantage, so it cannot exist at the status quo.

Alternatively, we could give B an extra vote, and give A two votes. C's privilege has been neutralized because he's now at the status quo. Nothing has happened to C's rights though - they're still the same. We just afforded A and B equal protection of the right to vote. C was privileged because his rights were expanded to give him an advantage. A was marginalized because his right to vote was deprived from him, preventing him for even being recognized by the system. So B wasn't privileged because he was at a disadvantage when compared to C, but he wasn't marginalized like A because his vote was still counted - it was just ineffective against C's vote.

So when someone says whites are privileged, it's disingenuous and mischaracterizes the issue. The only reason a white person would have an advantage over a different race is because that other race has been stripped of their rights. It's not because the white person has been afforded extra rights. If a minority wasn't denied his right, he would have the same power as a white personal. But that doesn't mean that the white person has expanded rights over the minority - it just means his rights weren't tampered with. And that lack of tampering is the status quo.