I do totally agree that we all bring our biases to the table. For that reason I see no harm in saying something like "The new ESV Study Bible was produced by an all-male, all-complementarian team," or "The Women's Study Bible notes include some egalitarian conclusions" when handing copies of these Bibles to readers.  I think it's actually good to note such things. 

I bring my pro-environmental Oregonian upbringing to the table every time I talk about recycling. The more aware we are of our own biases, the better. International interaction does wonders for helping us see ourselves through new eyes and helping us separate what is universal/timeless from what is American. (Our happily married Kenyan friend was shocked to discover, upon his visit to America, that a man wearing a pink watch in the states sends a certain message. Who knew "pink = girly" was not a universal concept?) 

I do, however, see a huge difference between flagging bias and discounting someone's conclusions because of what we assume their biases are (i.e., questioning motives). This is where I think we've gotten into trouble, on this subject in particular. One person warned me against talking on this subject at all because I'm a woman (i.e., I have an obvious bias toward women). True enough. Yet someone could (and some have) level the same charge against men--"easy for you to say--you're not personally affected by this--therefore you can't talk on this subject." It's so silly. To automatically discount someone's view because we assume they can't see straight for all their biases--that's what gets us in big trouble.

In that sense culture is always on the table. Right you are. Every single thing we do or think is probably, in some way, influenced by "nurture."

 What I believe Scripture is will most certainly sway my  method. And I do think it's important  to discuss our views of what scritpure is (e.g., I believe the Law was pretty much the minimum requirement for showing love, not the maximum; thus, today I would never argue that a rapist must marry his victim, as the Law required). But I'm arguing that we have this discussion on the level of what that method is, rather than shutting down discussion on the basis of what we assume one another's motives are.