That's not really an answer. That presumption can be interpreted in an anti-male way because it's not a far jump to go from "the mechanisms of birth are what creates and sustains connection" to "women, through the process of birth, are where all human connection come from" to "men cannot have human connection except through women" to "mothers are the only ones who ever love men for who they are, unconditionally"

This, of course, is nonsense. It's born (pardon thr pun) out of an almost mystical awe of the process of birth. And no doubt, for human women birth has always been an extreme and dangerous experience. That doesn't make it holy or divine, nor does it give it special powers beyond what it actually is.

Thi king that it does, doesn't lead anyone anywhere good. That sort of mysticism thinking around birth cleaves men off from the ability to form meaningful bonds without having to use women as facilitators in some way. That's harmful to men, and then men harm women. Once again, based on nonsense thinking.

What about birds? And fish? And bees? And monotremes? They all hatch from eggs, rather than developing inside a womb. They're also known to be deeply connected. Actually, playpuses are both solitary and live in small family groups.

What about sloths? Polar bears and pandas? Koalas? Most of the large cat species? Orangutans (whom we humans have about 97% DNA in common with)? Skunks? Moose? Wolverines? All born from a womb but live solitary lives.

It's pretty clear once we look beyond our own human noses that connection in species is established by means other than some sort of magical trans-placental bonding. It happens beyond being born from a womb.

Brave New World is fiction, basically a horror story. Why don't we stick with fact for this discussion so we don't get lost in the weeds trying to be fancy?