What defense do those with a pre-tribulational view of the rapture have regarding Paul's use of "day of Christ" in 2 Thessalonians 2?

From my understanding, the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine suggests that separate terms are used for the rapture event and Christ's complete arrival at the end of the tribulation. Specifically, proponents assert that *the Day of the Lord* refers to Christ's final arrival, while a term like *the Day of Christ* pertains to the rapture event. I believe John MacArthur and others have supported this perspective, stating that *the Day of Christ* refers specifically to the rapture. I am personally very persuaded of the opposite—that these various terms actually refer to the same event, each emphasizing different aspects of it. Regardless of the broader debate, focusing specifically on *the Day of Christ*: if this term indeed refers to the rapture event, how does one reconcile the belief that the rapture occurs prior to the onset of the great tribulation in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3? 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3 says: >"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition..." I find it difficult to see how one could justify the rapture occurring prior to the tribulation when considering passages like this. If *the Day of Christ* is distinct from *the Day of the Lord*, wouldn't this passage at least suggest a mid-tribulational view of the rapture, given that Paul explicitly states *the day of Christ* will not occur until a falling away happens and the man of sin is revealed? I suspect that those with a pre-tribulational view might point to the word *"revealed"* (ἀποκαλυφθῇ) as the key to their understanding. Perhaps the argument is that the man of sin being *"revealed"* is not the same event as him taking power or standing in the Holy Place? Do they interpret this as merely his coming to existence on earth, rather than his active rebellion or defilement of the temple? By no means am I am an expert in Biblical Greek, but I find this to be an unlikely interpretation of the term/phrase. Perhaps the argument instead interprets this passage as suggesting that the rapture occurs after the falling away but before the man of sin is revealed? In other words, they might propose that Paul is stating *the Day of Christ* occurs after the falling away and the revealing of the man of sin then follows. However, there seems to be no grammatical or contextual support for this view that, as I see it. Anyway, thank you in advance for any input.