We've tread similar ground in earlier threads on the subject. I'm of two minds on this problem. Interestingly, I recently read an interesting proposal by Robert Allison (JSNT, 1988) that tries to strike a middle road between these two main proposals. It's very speculative but seems to have the advantages of both ideas without their respective flaws. It contends that the Taceat (1 Corinthians 14:33b-36) is BOTH an interpolation and a genuine Pauline text where Paul responds negatively in v. 36 to the material in v. 33b-35. The usual interpolation theory treats v. 33b-36 as a conceptual unity attributing the misogynist view in v. 33b-35 to Paul but this does not acknowledge the rhetorical effect of the disjunct in v. 36 which Allison argues establishes a sarcastic stance toward an implicit view presented in the previous sentence, e.g.:
Romans 9:19-21: "You will ask me, 'In that case, how can God ever blame anyone, since no one can oppose his will?' O man, what right do you have to cross-examine God? Shall the pot say to the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?' [which implies that men have the right to question God's will]. Or does not the potter have authority over the clay to make what he wishes from it?"
1 Corinthians 6:2: "When one of you has a disagreement with his neighbor, does he dare to bring the matter before a heathen court? [which implies that he recognizes the legal subordination to the authority of the wordly court to judge over Christian affairs]. Or don't you realize that the saints will judge the world?".
1 Corinthians 6:8-9: "But you are wronging and robbing others, and even your brothers [which implies that you suppose that such behavior is acceptable in the brotherhood]. Or don't you know that wrongdoers will not have any share in God's kingdom".
There are other cases in which this disjunct, while displaying sarcasm, does not introduce a rebuttal of an implication in the prior sentence (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:18-19, 10:21-22), but the Taceat cannot be seen in this light considering the adversarial tone in v. 36 (cf. especially the shift to the second person) which concerns the matter of authority, an authority that implicitly excludes Paul (humas monous "you alone"). Verse 36 does not make much sense either as a direct comment on what directly preceded it. The disjunct rather seems to highlight the authoritative tone of v. 34-35, especially the passive epitrepetai "it is permitted" which is well-recognized as un-Pauline. The tone in v. 36 would thus make sense if the "you" pertains to the individuals behind the authoritative statement in v. 34-35. But the primary weakness of this argument is the lack of any indication that v. 33b-35 or 34-35 (v. 33b could go with either) is a quotation of any sort. Verse 36 is also an insufficient comment and the topic prior to the Taceat does not concern the subject of authority so the rhetorical ploy here would still be highly unusual.
Allison's suggestion is that the Taceat originally belonged to an earlier letter where in its original context it was clear that the material in v. 34-35 was not Paul's viewpoint. It was then added to a copy of 1 Corinthians as a marginal gloss, which could have been incorporated into the text in different ways (perhaps cf. the variable textual tradition). We know that Paul was here responding to an earlier letter by the church at Corinth (7:1), whose points are responded to in turn via the peri de introductory formula (7:1, 7:25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1), and that letter evidently was preceded by an earlier letter by Paul (5:9). There was also another communication from "Chloe's people" as indicated in 1:11, which concerned the disunity in the church and the slogans used to indicate alignment with apostolic leaders. Allison hypothesizes that the Taceat originated in Paul's response to the letter sent by Chloe's people, as the latter would have naturally been concerned about the role of women in the ecclesia. The authoritative command in 14:34-35 would effectly disenfranchise Chloe's status in the church and may have been one of the erides alluded to in 1:11. One possibility is that Paul gave private counsel in addition to the public epistle that constitutes 1 Corinthians (cf. Ignatius writing both to the church at Smyrna as well as privately to Polycarp). In such a letter it would have been clear what Paul's position on the matter was as opposed to the more ambiguous setting in the current text of 1 Corinthians. The statements in ch. 11 about women would have further addressed in the public epistle the situation of women like Chloe. Another possibility is that the Taceat belonged to the letter mentioned in 5:9 (or some other early Pauline letter to Corinth) and the material in 14:34-35 represents the view taken by some in the church. In either case, the main point is that the original context could have been one in which the rhetorical formulation made good sense. To illustrate this, I construct below a plausible (but completely and utterly conjectural!) context:
"Has anyone given you some special right to decide who may teach and prophesy when the Spirit gives these gifts to whomever he chooses? Has the Spirit instructed you to say 'Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.' Or did the Word of God instead originate with you? Or are you the only people it is reached? I have no such command from the Lord, etc.
Although there is no evidence per se that the Taceat came from another Pauline letter, it is not implausible that passages from other Pauline letters (such as private letters that have not otherwise survived) were copied into the margins or incorporated into the text directly; 2 Corinthians seems to be composed of fragments of several letters and marginal comments accidentally copied into text are well known elsewhere. What makes this explanation attractive is that it accounts for both the evidence for interpolation, the adversative reading of v. 36, and the lack of indication that the material in v. 34-35 is not Paul's opinion. It would also motivate the secondary textual tradition which dislocates v. 34-35 to after v. 40 which would represent a different way of integrating the marginal note in the text (but cf. the position of v. 36).
It's an interesting idea, but a hard sell....plus it would not explain the similar language in the Pastorals unless the latter were influenced by it. But it is worth noting that there is another possibility that has been raised.