“Born of water and spirit” is a reference to baptism, same as in 1 Peter 3:21. If Christ wanted to say “born of womb and spirit”, He would have said so.
This is typical Protestant twisting of the Holy Scripture, to the point that words don’t mean anything to a Protestant “reader”.
That's a really dumb comparison, IMHO. 1 Peter 3:20 and God's instruction to Noah (Gen. 6:14-18) must be considered. The water analogy is an antitype, not a similarity.
In fact, Noah and his family were NOT saved by the waters; thgey were saved by the boat! by obeying God's instructions! The water killed every other land-bound animal. Noah and family (and every variety of animal) were preserved through the waters, they never went into the flood; and the flood experience did not give them a new life--merely that the life they already had was preserved through the waters.
Similarly, the disciple's baptism of the NT is a rite of induction admitting the baptized one into the fellowship of disciples--the local church. To be baptized one has to be able to at least profess a saving belief before being immersed (the only Biblical baptism for Christ-followers).
More like typical Roman Catholic twisting and perversion of Holy Scripture to the point that the VERY NEXT WORDS are ignored. Read on...
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. (John 3:5,6)
Jesus, Himself, explains that the "born of water" is "flesh gives birth to flesh" and "born of the Spirit" is "Spirit gives birth to spirit.". It's really not all that hard to figure out when one reads passages IN their context.